president' call to close guantanamo bay. you to take good care of all the furniture. >> they did return to the white house, winning the election of 1892. we continue our series on first ladies live monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> now, president obama outlines his counterterrorism strategy as the net -- at the national defense university. he defended u.s. joan strikes overseas as legal and necessary in the fight against al qaeda. during his remarks, the president was interrupted by a protester. >> it is a great honor to return to the national defense university. here, at fort mcnair, americans have served in uniform since 1791, standing guard in the early days of the republic, and contemplating the future of

warfare here in the 21st century. for over two centuries, the united states has been bound together by founding documents that defined who we are as americans, and served as our compass through every type of change. matters of war and peace are no different. americans are deeply ambivalent about war, but having fought for our independence, we know that a price must be paid for freedom. from the civil war, to our struggle against fascism, and through the long, twilight struggle of the cold war, battlefields have changed, and technology has evolved. but our commitment to constitutional principles has weathered every war, and every war has come to an end.

with the collapse of the berlin wall, a new dawn of democracy took hold abroad, and a decade of peace and prosperity arrived at home. for a moment, it seemed the 21st century would be a tranquil time. then, on september 11, 2001, we were shaken out of complacency. thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire, metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning. this was a different kind of war. no armies came to our shores, and our military was not the principal target. instead, a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could. and so our nation went to war. we have now been at war for well over a decade. i won't review the full history. what's clear is that we quickly drove al qaeda out of afghanistan, but then shifted our focus and began a new war in iraq. this carried grave consequences

for our fight against al qaeda, our standing in the world, and to this day -- our interests in a vital region. meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses -- hardening targets, tightening transportation security, and giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. most of these changes were sound. some caused inconvenience. but some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. and in some cases, i believe we compromised our basic values -- by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law. after i took office, we stepped up the war against al qaeda, but also sought to change its

course. we relentlessly targeted al qaeda's leadership. we ended the war in iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. we pursued a new strategy in afghanistan, and increased our training of afghan forces. we unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with congress. today, osama bin laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. there have been no large-scale attacks on the united states, and our homeland is more secure. fewer of our troops are in harm's way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. in sum, we are safer because of

our efforts. now make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. from benghazi to boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. we must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. with a decade of experience to draw from, now is the time to ask ourselves hard questions -- about the nature of today's threats, and how we should confront them. these questions matter to every american. for over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war, exploding our deficits and constraining our ability to nation build here at home. our service-members and their families have sacrificed far

more on our behalf. nearly 7,000 americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home. from our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions we are making will define the type of nation -- and world -- that we leave to our children. so america is at a crossroads. we must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of james madison's warning that "no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." neither i, nor any president, can promise the total defeat of terror. we will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some

human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. what we can do -- what we must do -- is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. to define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. and that begins with understanding the threat we face. today, the core of al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan is on a path to defeat. their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. they did not direct the attacks

in benghazi or boston. they have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. instead, what we've seen is the emergence of various al qaeda affiliates. from yemen to iraq, from somalia to north africa, the threat today is more diffuse, with al qaeda's affiliate in the arabian peninsula -- aqap -the most active in plotting against our homeland. while none of aqap's efforts approach the scale of 9/11 they have continued to plot acts of terror, like the attempt to blow up an airplane on christmas day in 2009. unrest in the arab world has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like libya and syria. here, too, there are differences

from 9/11. in some cases, we confront state-sponsored networks like hezbollah that engage in acts of terror to achieve political goals. others are simply collections of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory. while we are vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat, most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based. that means we will face more localized threats like those we saw in benghazi, or at the bp oil facility in algeria, in which local operatives -- in loose affiliation with regional networks -- launch periodic attacks against western diplomats, companies, and other soft targets, or resort to kidnapping and other criminal

enterprises to fund their operations. finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the united states. whether it's a shooter at a sikh temple in wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the federal building in oklahoma city -- america has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our time. deranged or alienated individuals -- often u.s. citizens or legal residents -- can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at fort hood, and the bombing of the boston marathon. lethal yet less capable al qaeda affiliates. threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. homegrown extremists. this is the future of terrorism. we must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. but as we shape our response, we

have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. in the 1980s, we lost americans to terrorism at our embassy in beirut, at our marine barracks in lebanon, on a cruise ship at sea, at a disco in berlin, and on pan am flight 103 over lockerbie. in the 1990s, we lost americans to terrorism at the world trade center, at our military facilities in saudi arabia, and at our embassy in kenya. these attacks were all deadly, and we learned that left unchecked, these threats can grow. but if dealt with smartly and proportionally, these threats

need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11. moreover, we must recognize that these threats don't arise in a vacuum. most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology -- a belief by some extremists that islam is in conflict with the united states and the west, and that violence against western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the united states is not at war with islam, and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of muslims,

who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts. nevertheless, this ideology persists, and in an age in which ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant, our response to terrorism cannot depend on military or law enforcement alone. we need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills and ideas. so let me discuss the components of such a comprehensive counter- terrorism strategy. first, we must finish the work of defeating al qaeda and its associated forces. in afghanistan, we will complete our transition to afghan responsibility for security. our troops will come home. our combat mission will come to an end. and we will work with the afghan government to train security forces, and sustain a counter- terrorism force which ensures that al qaeda can never again establish a safe-haven to launch attacks against us or our allies. beyond afghanistan, we must

define our effort not as a boundless 'global war on terror' but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten america. in many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries. thousands of pakistani soldiers have lost their lives fighting extremists. in yemen, we are supporting security forces that have reclaimed territory from aqap. in somalia, we helped a coalition of african nations push al shabaab out of its strongholds. in mali, we are providing military aid to a french-led intervention to push back al qaeda in the maghreb, and help the people of mali reclaim their future. much of our best counter- terrorism cooperation results in the gathering and sharing of

intelligence, the arrest and prosecution of terrorists. that's how a somali terrorist apprehended off the coast of yemen is now in prison in new york. that's how we worked with european allies to disrupt plots from denmark to germany to the united kingdom. that's how intelligence collected with saudi arabia helped us stop a cargo plane from being blown up over the atlantic. but despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed. al qaeda and its affiliates try to gain a foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on earth. they take refuge in remote tribal regions. they hide in caves and walled

compounds. they train in empty deserts and rugged mountains. in some of these places -- such as parts of somalia and yemen -- the state has only the most tenuous reach into the territory. in other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action. it is also not possible for america to simply deploy a team of special forces to capture every terrorist. and even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians, where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities that pose no threat to us, or when putting u.s. boots on the ground may trigger a major international

crisis. to put it another way, our operation in pakistan against osama bin laden cannot be the norm. the risks in that case were immense, the likelihood of capture, although our preference, was remote given the certainty of resistance, the fact that we did not find ourselves confronted with civilian casualties, or embroiled in an extended firefight, was a testament to the meticulous planning and professionalism of our special forces -- but also depended on some luck. and even then, the cost to our relationship with pakistan -- and the backlash among the pakistani public over

encroachment on their territory was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership. it is in this context that the united states has taken lethal, targeted action against al qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones. as was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions -- about who is targeted, and why, about civilian casualties, and the risk of creating new

enemies, about the legality of such strikes under u.s. and international law, about accountability and morality. let me address these questions. to begin with, our actions are effective. don't take my word for it. in the intelligence gathered at bin laden's compound, we found that he wrote, "we could lose the reserves to the enemy's air strikes. we cannot fight air strikes with explosives." other communications from al qaeda operatives confirm this as well. dozens of highly skilled al qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, u.s. transit systems, european cities and our troops in afghanistan. simply put, these strikes have saved lives. moreover, america's actions are legal. we were attacked on 9/11. within a week, congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. under domestic law, and international law, the united

states is at war with al qaeda, the taliban, and their associated forces. we are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many americans as they could if we did not stop them first. so this is a just war -- a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense. and yet as our fight enters a new phase, america's legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. to say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. for the same human progress that gives us the technology to

strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power -- or risk abusing it. that's why, over the last four years, my administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists -- insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in presidential policy guidance that i signed yesterday. in the afghan war theater, we must support our troops until the transition is complete at the end of 2014. that means we will continue to take strikes against high value al qaeda targets, but also against forces that are massing to support attacks on coalition

forces. however, by the end of 2014, we will no longer have the same need for force protection, and the progress we have made against core al qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes. beyond the afghan theater, we only target al qaeda and its associated forces. even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. america does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists - our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute them. america cannot take strikes wherever we choose -- our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty. america does not take strikes to punish individuals -- we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat

to the american people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. and before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured -- the highest standard we can set. this last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes -- at home and abroad -- understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. there is a wide gap between u.s. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports. nevertheless, it is a hard fact that u.s. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. for the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. for me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt

us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in afghanistan and iraq. but as commander in chief, i must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. to do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties -- not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the very places -like sana'a and kabul and mogadishu -- where terrorists seek a foothold. let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll

from their acts of terrorism against muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes. where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted, lethal action is the use of conventional military options. as i've said, even small special operations carry enormous risks. conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage. and invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies, unleash a torrent of unintended consequences, are difficult to

contain, and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict. so it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths, or to create enemies in the muslim world. the result would be more u.s. deaths, more blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars. so yes, the conflict with al qaeda, like all armed conflict, invites tragedy. but by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us, and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to

result in the loss of innocent life. indeed, our efforts must also be measured against the history of putting american troops in distant lands among hostile populations. in vietnam, hundreds of thousands of civilians died in a war where the boundaries of battle were blurred. in iraq and afghanistan, despite the courage and discipline of our troops, thousands of civilians have been killed. so neither conventional military action, nor waiting for attacks to occur, offers moral safe- harbor. neither does a sole reliance on law enforcement in territories that have no functioning police or security services -- and indeed, have no functioning law.

this is not to say that the risks are not real. any u.s. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, and impacts public opinion overseas. our laws constrain the power of the president, even during wartime, and i have taken an oath to defend the constitution of the united states. the very precision of drones strikes, and the necessary secrecy involved in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. it can also lead a president and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism.

for this reason, i've insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action. after i took office, my administration began briefing all strikes outside of iraq and afghanistan to the appropriate committees of congress. let me repeat that -- not only did congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that america takes. that includes the one instance when we targeted an american citizen, anwar awlaki, the chief of external operations for aqap. this week, i authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more

outlandish claims. for the record, i do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any u.s. citizen -- with a drone, or a shotgun -- without due process. nor should any president deploy armed drones over u.s. soil. but when a u.s. citizen goes abroad to wage war against america -- and is actively plotting to kill u.s. citizens, and when neither the united states, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot -- his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a .wat tea

that's who anwar awlaki was -- he was continuously trying to kill people. he helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two u.s.-bound cargo planes. he was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. when farouk abdulmutallab -- the christmas day bomber -- went to yemen in 2009, awlaki hosted him, approved his suicide operation, and helped him tape a martyrdom video to be shown after the attack. his last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over american soil. i would have detained and prosecuted awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot. but we couldn't. and as president, i would have been derelict in my duty had i not authorized the strike that took out awlaki. of course, the targeting of any

americans raises constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes -- which is why my administration submitted information about awlaki to the department of justice months before awlaki was killed, and briefed the congress before this strike as well. but the high threshold that we have set for taking lethal action applies to all potential terrorist targets, regardless of whether or not they are american citizens. this threshold respects the inherent dignity of every human life. alongside the decision to put our men and women in uniform in harm's way, the decision to use force against individuals or groups -- even against a sworn enemy of the united states -- is the hardest thing i do as president. but these decisions must be made, given my responsibility to protect the american people.

going forward, i have asked my administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to congress. each option has virtues in theory, but poses difficulties in practice. for example, the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority. another idea that's been suggested -- the establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch -- avoids those problems, but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into national-security decision-

making, without inspiring additional public confidence in the process. despite these challenges, i look forward to actively engaging congress to explore these -- and other -- options for increased oversight. i believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion about a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. because for all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe. we cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root, and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well- spring of extremism, a perpetual war -- through drones or special forces or troop deployments -- will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways. so the next element of our

strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism, from north africa to south asia. as we've learned this past decade, this is a vast and complex undertaking. we must be humble in our expectation that we can quickly resolve deep rooted problems like poverty and sectarian hatred. moreover, no two countries are alike, and some will undergo chaotic change before things get better. but our security and values demand that we make the effort. this means patiently supporting transitions to democracy in places like egypt, tunisia and libya -- because the peaceful realization of individual aspirations will serve as a rebuke to violent extremists. we must strengthen the

opposition in syria, while isolating extremist elements -- because the end of a tyrant must not give way to the tyranny of terrorism. we are working to promote peace between israelis and palestinians -- because it is right, and because such a peace could help reshape attitudes in the region. and we must help countries modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship -- because american leadership has always been elevated by our ability to connect with peoples' hopes, and not simply their fears. success on these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources. i know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures -- even though it amounts to less than one percent of the federal budget. but foreign assistance cannot be viewed as charity. it is fundamental to our

national security, and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism. moreover, foreign assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars that our assistance might ultimately prevent. for what we spent in a month in iraq at the height of the war, we could be training security forces in libya, maintaining peace agreements between israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in yemen, building schools in pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill

that marginalize extremists. america cannot carry out this work if we do not have diplomats serving in dangerous places. over the past decade, we have strengthened security at our embassies, and i am implementing every recommendation of the accountability review board which found unacceptable failures in benghazi. i have called on congress to fully fund these efforts to bolster security, harden facilities, improve

intelligence, and facilitate a quicker response time from our military if a crisis emerges. but even after we take these steps, some irreducible risks to our diplomats will remain. this is the price of being the world's most powerful nation, particularly as a wave of change washes over the arab world. and in balancing the trade-offs between security and active diplomacy, i firmly believe that any retreat from challenging regions will only increase the dangers we face in the long run. targeted action against terrorists. effective partnerships. diplomatic engagement and assistance. through such a comprehensive strategy we can significantly reduce the chances of large scale attacks on the homeland

and mitigate threats to americans overseas. as we guard against dangers from abroad, however, we cannot neglect the daunting challenge of terrorism from within our borders. as i said earlier, this threat is not new. but technology and the internet increase its frequency and lethality. today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda, and learn how to kill without leaving their home. to address this threat, two years ago my administration did a comprehensive review, and engaged with law enforcement. the best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the muslim american community -- which has consistently rejected terrorism -- to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence. and these partnerships can only work when we recognize that muslims are a fundamental part

of the american family. indeed, the success of american muslims, and our determination to guard against any encroachments on their civil liberties, is the ultimate rebuke to those who say we are at war with islam. indeed, thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call america home. that's why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. that means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, and build in privacy protections to prevent abuse. that means that -- even after boston -- we do not deport

someone or throw someone in prison in the absence of evidence. that means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the state secrets doctrine. and that means finally having a strong privacy and civil liberties board to review those issues where our counter- terrorism efforts and our values may come into tension. the justice department's investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and

our open society. as commander-in chief, i believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. to do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. but a free press is also essential for our democracy. i am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable. journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. our focus must be on those who break the law. that is why i have called on congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. i have raised these issues with the attorney general, who shares my concern.

so he has agreed to review existing department of justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. and i have directed the attorney general to report back to me by july 12th. all these issues remind us that the choices we make about war can impact -- in sometimes unintended ways -- the openness and freedom on which our way of life depends. and that is why i intend to engage congress about the existing authorization to use military force, or aumf, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists without keeping america on a perpetual war-time footing. the aumf is now nearly twelve years old. the afghan war is coming to an end. core al qaeda is a shell of its former self. groups like aqap must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al qaeda will pose a credible threat to the united states.

unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states. so i look forward to engaging congress and the american people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the aumf's mandate. and i will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. but this war, like all wars, must end. that's what history advises. that's what our democracy

demands. and that brings me to my final topic, the detention of terrorist suspects. to repeat, as a matter of policy, the preference of the united states is to capture terrorist suspects. when we do detain a suspect, we interrogate them. and if the suspect can be prosecuted, we decide whether to try him in a civilian court or a military commission. during the past decade, the vast majority of those detained by our military were captured on the battlefield. in iraq, we turned over thousands of prisoners as we ended the war. in afghanistan, we have transitioned detention facilities to the afghans, as part of the process of restoring afghan sovereignty. so we bring law of war detention to an end, and we are committed to prosecuting terrorists whenever we can. the glaring exception to this time-tested approach is the detention center at guantanamo

bay. the original premise for opening gtmo -- that detainees would not be able to challenge their detention -- was found unconstitutional five years ago. in the meantime, gtmo has become a symbol around the world for an america that flouts the rule of law. our allies won't cooperate with us if they think a terrorist will end up at gtmo. during a time of budget cuts, we spend $150 million each year to imprison 166 people -almost $1 million per prisoner. and the department of defense estimates that we must spend another $200 million to keep gtmo open at a time when we are cutting investments in education and research here at home. as president, i have tried to close gtmo. i transferred 67 detainees to other countries before congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries, or imprisoning them in the united states.

these restrictions make no sense. after all, under president bush, some 530 detainees were transferred from gtmo with congress's support. when i ran for president the first time, john mccain supported closing gtmo. no person has ever escaped from one of our super-max or military prisons in the united states. our courts have convicted hundreds of people for terrorism-related offenses, including some who are more dangerous than most gtmo detainees.

given my administration's relentless pursuit of al qaeda's leadership, there is no justification beyond politics for congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened. today, i once again call on congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from gtmo.

let me address it. why don't you let me address it, ms.? >> [indiscernible] >> thank you, ma'am. thank you. [applause] thank you. you should let me finish my sentence. today, i once again call on congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from gtmo. i have asked the department of defense to designate a site in the united states where we can hold military commissions. i am appointing a new, senior envoy at the state department and defense department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries. i am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to yemen, so we can review them on a case by case basis.

to the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries. where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system. and we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee.>> [indiscernible] >> ma'am, let me finish. let me finish, ma'am. a part of free speech is you being able to speak, but you listen to me being able to speak. [applause] thank you. now,

even after we take these steps, one issue will remain, how to deal with those gtmo detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted -- for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. but once we commit to a process of closing gtmo, i am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law. i know the politics are hard. but history will cast a harsh judgment on this aspect of our fight against terrorism, and those of us who fail to end it. imagine a future -- ten years from now, or twenty years from now -- when the united states of america is still holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not a part of our country. look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger strike. is that who we are?

is that something that our founders foresaw? is that the america we want to i ame to our children? willing to cut the young lady who interrupted me some slack because it is worth being passionate about. it is who we are. - is that who we are? is that something that our founders foresaw? is that the america we want to leave to our children? our sense of justice is stronger than that. we have prosecuted scores of terrorists in our courts. that includes umar farouk abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up an airplane over detroit, and faisal shahzad, who put a car bomb in times square. it is in a court of law that we will try dzhokhar tsarnaev, who is accused of bombing the boston marathon.

richard reid, the shoe bomber, is as we speak serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison here, in the united states. in sentencing reid, judge william young told him, "the way we treat you is the measure of our own liberties.">> how about [indiscernible] is that the way we treat [indiscernible] [indiscernible] >> we are addressing that, ma'am. >> you have killed.

will you compensate the innocent families victims. [indiscernible] i love my country. [indiscernible] >> i am going off strip -- a script, or as yo might expect -- i am going off script, as you might expect here. [applause] the voice of that woman is worth paying attention to. [applause] withusly, i do not agree much of what she said. obviously, she was not listening to me in much of what i said. these are tough issues.

and the suggestion that we can gloss over them is wrong. and when that judge sends the shoe bomber, he went on to appoint the american flag that flew in the court room, that flag, he said, will fly there long after this is all forgotten. that flag still stands for freedom. america, we have faced down dangers far greater than al qaeda. by staying true to the values of our founding, and by using our constitutional compass, we have overcome slavery and civil war, fascism and communism. in just these last few years as president, i have watched the

american people bounce back from painful recession, mass shootings, and natural disasters like the recent tornados that devastated oklahoma. these events were heartbreaking, they shook our communities to the core. but because of the resilience of the american people, these events could not come close to breaking us. i think of lauren manning, the 9/11 survivor who had severe burns over 80 percent of her body, who said, "that's my reality. i put a band-aid on it, literally, and i move on." i think of the new yorkers who filled times square the day after an attempted car bomb as if nothing had happened. i think of the proud pakistani parents who, after their daughter was invited to the white house, wrote to us, "we have raised an american muslim daughter to dream big and never

give up because it does pay off." i think of the wounded warriors rebuilding their lives, and helping other vets to find jobs. i think of the runner planning to do the 2014 boston marathon, who said, "next year, you are going to have more people than ever. determination is not something to be messed with." that's who the american people are. determined, and not to be messed with. now, we need a strategy -- and a politics -that reflects this resilient spirit. our victory against terrorism won't be measured in a surrender ceremony on a battleship, or a

statue being pulled to the ground. victory will be measured in parents taking their kids to school, immigrants coming to our shores, fans taking in a ballgame, a veteran starting a business, a bustling city street. the quiet determination, that strength of character and bond of fellowship, that refutation of fear -- that is both our sword and our shield. and long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world's memory, alongside the brutal despots, deranged madmen, and ruthless demagogues who litter history -- the flag of the united states will still wave from small-town cemeteries, to national

monuments, to distant outposts abroad. and that flag will still stand for freedom. thank you. god bless you. and may god bless the united states of america. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. may god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

♪ a couple of policy changes thewide-ranging speech from pot counterterrorism, dealing with how drones can be used and atowing detainees held bentanamo bay prison to transferred to other countries. we're taking your calls about president's speech.

a democratall is from boston, massachusetts. what do you have to say about this? craig: hello? turn your phone down for me? caller: sure. comment? your wanted to congratulate how he handledn the young lady in the back and he's not just a president, he's and he understands the american people on how we russia.mocracy, not i like how he handled the theation with the lady in back and he is a president for all people and i appreciate what and i like what he did and i think all americans should

lighte president in this and he is not just for one all americans.or >> we want to remind you to mute your television sets to avoid feedback on the air. ason is our next caller, republican from north carolina caller: i'm a black american, i voted for president obama and my the first time in lifetime i'm extremely this president. i don't think i'll ever see of africansident descent so he has been a disappointment. >> what about the counterterrorism strategy president'syou, the policy? caller: i just think that those those -- there's a perception

that he has that terrorism is dead. terrorism is not dead. and to place these people in the american court system or even american jails, it's just utterly ridiculous. -- gtmo was get me designed for. i'm really disappointed and disheartened. he talks a good game. i'malks, it seems like, but just afraid that we have just roadled off a different we know that community organizers cannot run this country. >> the president announced he on lifting the ban transferring guantanamo bay detainees to their home country yemen. nearly 100 of the terror bayects held at guantanamo

are from yemen and many are on hunger strikes right now. our next call is from middletown, ohio, i believe. call. lost that evelyn, detroit, michigan, democrat. go ahead. i liked the speech that the president makes and i think ae president is doing wonderful job not only for everybody around thatorld and it's time we're a spiritual group and it's join hands in all hand with each other and get on forknees and start praying every country in the whole world because all the disasters we're not lovingoming from each other so it's time that we together andife eliminate all these drugs in the neighborhoods and guns and the mainnd that's thing that the president should really work on because it's too

people dying and babies chanceven have a anymore. >> evelyn, wanted to let you know that the president will speech tomorrow, thecommencement address at in annapolis, maryland. is up next from bella vista. caller: i would just like to say that president obama has nothing of united the people states. he's concerned about is the muslims and other countries when have so much kids that can't school and afford isches and even -- everybody so hungry for jobs in this country yet he does never talk

jobs. all he cares about -- we wanted to focus on the president's speech today on counterterrorism. you hear on that that you want to comment on? withr: he's concerned taking care of all these other countries. to -- joe5 million million, so,or 500 billion, for the surrounding countries around turkey and other countries around syria and all they want to do is take the the united states where the kids are starving and people don't have jobs and give all these foreign countries which does not make entirese to me in my life. i have been here for 63 years, in this country. am also ariot and i

traditionalist that we take care of our own people before we take in otherther people countries. our own people are starving right now. >> we heard an earlier caller a protester in the back. during the speech, president was interrupted three times by code pink co-founder madea benjamin. going to watch a little bit of that right now. how about abdul razzmala american, 16-year-old killed? why was he killed? us why al-maliki was killed? people tell the muslim their lives are as precious as our lives? can you take the drones out of the hands of c.i.a. can you discuss the signature

people on theg basis of suspicious activities? will you apologize to the muslims that you have killed? innocentcompensate the family victims? that will make us safer here at home. i love my country! i love the rule of law! keeping people detained at us lessmo is making safe. >> >> we just saw that protest from speech onent's counterterrorism. at one point, the president reacted to the protest saying he to cut the young lady some slack because the addressing is are worth being passionate about. matthew fromer,

west milford. go ahead. i think the president did a lot of toeing the party the in this speech and made points he was supposed to make in defending the drone policy counterterrorism policies mostly is but partly carrying on from president bush needed tod what he say but that is not to say that sense ining coherent his parts because even though the woman did make relevant points, i think the president that evenome points anugh al-maliki wasn't american citizen, the fact that he waged war in america revokes butcitizenship in principle we've heard a lot about the effectiveness of watch lists as and otherrnaev terrorists who have committed

crimes here in the u.s. but really i think the president touched on this, too, what can we really do to people that come are on watch lists and are already in the country? the f.b.i. cannot arrest these without cause. >> what do you think about the president saying he would work with congress on legislation would create additional independent oversight of those killings? caller: the targeted killings of drone strikes, you mean? >> yes. caller: i think that legislation not really go very far in housepublican controlled is mainly aiming to dismantle every attempt by the president to advance any kind of counterterrorism policy but i really think that what the said about giving aid to foreign countries as being a counterterrorism policy should really come to make up the majority of the counterterrorism policy so much as the carrot rather than the

stick. next up, lavita. what do you have to say? president'sink the doing all right. , you know, i always wanted to go in the service from the time years old and especially then again at 14. well, my life dream came true. my mom said if that's what to put in for it. but when i put in for it, all graduated from high school and i joined eight days before my 42nd birthday. i went to security and i was years.or 20 and i learned a lot about the military. harbor,ationed at pearl would go to korea a lot and i say based on everything that i know, i'm kind of for the president. i'm a democrat. my dad was republican so we had fight there. but i think the president's good and asretty long as we can keep food in the

house or buy a whatever, as long as we can make it, some people don't get out and try. >> we just heard lavita is a democrat. our next call is from john from canton, ohio, a republican. hi, john. caller: hi. previousate what the caller talked about as far as her being a democrat and being in the military. i have a lot of relatives and friends that are military and don't approve of obama. he does not truly support our military so i don't know where she's coming from but all the that are ini know the military do not support him. policy changeshe today? what do you have to say about what the president said about drones? i just really object to what's happening with drones and his feelings on gtmo and i feel, when i listen to

him, he is just a liar. he cametched him when on the scene in the democratic convention and i was very impressed with him. i thought, this is a great guy. got into the he picture and i started reading, this country pays attention to where he came from. at --on't look >> we're going to let you know following also conversation on twitter and facebook. tweets --ternational people killed by u.s. drones 47,000.ately burwick.esse call from

you're an independent? go ahead. of all, i would like to thank and my heart goes the lives that have the lost throughout military over the mere thought of terrorism. really strikes close to home when you see your own countrymen go off and die in battle for a cause that nobody really completely understands. there are some things that the president did say that i kind of do agree with like the closing of guantanamo bay. no more inhumane spot seehe planet i would rather closed than that spot right there. there are several people that have died because of the hunger strike. >> what do you think about the idea of allowing detainees to be transferred to their home country of yemen? >> i think that would be

awesome. -- haveuldn't there in been there in first place and the lady with the 16-year-old agree with her. i really do. and she should have waited. she should have waited until done to start screaming and what-not. there's that whole respect issue. think too many people have been lost over the whole and all of our boys should come back home and i think all of those things about this stuff in all pakistan and libya and the pursuit of liberty and happiness that, iything like think we should have that here at home. >> next we're going to hear from in gary, indiana. caller: hi. can you turn your television down? caller: ok. it?you hear can. it's better. go ahead. caller: i am a republican from

gary, indiana, and i do totally support -- i think obama is a very good job with the circumstances that he has to with. totally support his trying to close guantanamo. think that needs to be closed. it's expensive for us and i good job anding a i wanted to say that. ofwe've covered a number hearings on capitol hill about the use of drones which you can see at c-span.org. our next call is nathan from summerville. caller: good evening. independent, i'm also have a military family. all three of my sons have served currentlynd are except for one, active duty, and woundedne son that's a warrior and i'm proud of their service but i'm also proud of president and i think people need to take a step back and

they need to look at the fact the way we're fighting wars there unsustainable and has to be a change and i'm neither republican nor democrat but i voted for president obama felt like he was the best man for the job and i think the callers have an overdose of talk radio and need to think for themselves but as concerned,drones are my position is do what's necessary to keep us safe and i think president obama has done that and i think he is putting together -- i think it's brilliant, the strategy of drones, i think it will cut down on the loss of american lives. think that he's thinking outside of the box. we have a lot of people on capitol hill still thinking of vietnam and world war ii. can't fight wars like that anymore. we have to be smarter and what currentway than to use technology. i think president obama has brought in a new plan. i like the fact that he's

back to congress. my only concern about congress is they've been doing so much and so much infighting, i hope he reserves as the president of states, in the case they need to call a drone to callthey won't have congress together to make the decision. i think the drone is a gift and to use thecontinue technology to improve the security of the country so i'm president and i think he hit a h.r. on that. >> he was our last caller. have more about the president's speech and the administration's counterterrorism policy tomorrow morning on "washington journal." prasow from human rights watch will join us. with curtis dubay

heritageamerican cromartie and john and jim webster join us. after the president's speech, senators mccain, graham and conference a press about guantanamo bay. briefing, not a press this is a slide show. good afternoon. i am joined by my colleagues

chambliss, the senate member on the intelligence committee, senator lindsey graham, both armed services and defense appropriations, and senator ayotte of the armed services committee. all four of us have been deeply thelved in the issues that president of the united states articulated his ideas and proposals on. there are some areas where we are in agreement with the president of the united states. there are some areas that we are in disagreement. ad-- of all, i have always advocated the closure of the prisons at guantanamo bay for a variety of reasons that we will into now. but we always wanted a plan. senator graham and i and mr. greg craig sat down and

to articulate and come up with an agreement. we never got an agreement. the administration never came up with a coherent or cohesive plan to close guantanamo bay. still openit is today. and in light of the president's will pledge our willingness to work with the president of the united states that guantanamo bay is closed. but as my colleagues will also state, there are a lot of moving parts to closing guantanamo bay, is whereeast of which you put these people, which ones have to be kept on almost an indefinite basis, those eligible for military courts and those eligible for civilian courts. all of those are tied together. of guantanamo bay, we pledge to work with the president but this time we hope coherent plan for addressing that issue. on the issue of the ofhorizations for the use military force, i believe we are still in a long, drawn-out

with al qaeda. to somehow argue that al qaeda run" comes from a unreality that, to me, is really incredible. the run ison the middlell over and allm mali to yemen places in between and to somehow thek that we can bring authorization of the use of completeforce to a closure contradicts the reality of the facts on the ground. for ada will be with us long time. i specifically want to point president's remarks, and i quote, we must strengthen whileposition in syria isolating extremist elements, doesse the end of a tyrant not give way to the tyranny of

terrorism. theust strengthen opposition in syria. i agree, mr. president, and we have watched in the last little years 80,000, 100,000 ofple massacred, presence extremist elements on the increase, including al qaeda in syria, destabilization of lebanon and jordan, all of the things that the non-interventionists said would happen if we intervene have happened because we didn't intervene and i'm dumbfounded wet the president would say must strengthen the opposition in syria when again we were goodwill of the s and a peace conference that may or may not take place next month. are a number of other comments about the president's speech i would be glad to go but may be better addressed in the question and answer

period. in turmoil.ast is the middle east cries out for american leadership. american leadership is absent in the middle east and that is the price we havethe paid in iraq. that is the price we have paid the pricend that is we are paying in syria and other countries today. the president to leave, to be involved, to be engaged. troops on themean ground but it means an exercise includinghip, providing a safe zone for the people who are struggling against bashar al-assad and taking out bashar al-assad's terror assets and giving the they need the weapons as they are being massacred. chambliss. >> thanks, senator mccain. john and i have a slight opinion about guantanamo bay. advocateen one to

maintaining guantanamo bay and my reason's pretty simple. were to capture some of benghazi terrorists who we know today are running free, we going to do with them? we have no place to take them? are we going to bring them into article iii court? are we going to trust the libyans to prosecute them? to them?ing to happen that's one simple question. the other one is, we've got 166 meanest, nastiest killers in the world located at guantanamo bay today. has said issident that we're going to move towards closure and that mean the presumably 86 of those individuals that have already been authorized for transfer but they were not transferred because a number of yemen.e going to yemeni, andre following the 2009 bomber

to yemenall transfers were stopped because we didn't have confident the yemeni government could handle them. between december 2009 and today, any indication that they're more capable of looking after those individuals? absolutely not. and if we were to transfer those individuals to yemen, we'd be them loose andng i just don't think that's the right thing to do. state-of-the-art facilities at guantanamo. we should try the individuals that are at guantanamo today in courtrooms at guantanamo, then make a decision on what to with them after that. the other issue i want to touch the presidentt transparencyis the he now wants to see in the drone program. saids limited in what he on the program so obviously i can only be limited in what i it but suffice it to say that in the case of

we had complete tran parencey that was given to the american public and govern to congress. congress knew exactly what was going on with respect to the targeting of alacky and that's the type of transparency that i but to openropriate the book, so to speak, on the think does noti make america a safer place in which to live. that, i'll turn to senator graham. >> thank you. on detention policy, i would argue that the administration's policy has, quite frankly, been a failure. how many people have we captured and interrogated under the law of war? every time we capture a we don't kill them, there have just been a that's got to stop. now, about guantanamo bay, it's not about the location of the

jail. i don't mind if we try to find a place to move it into the united states. what i want is a legal system consistent with being at war and the reason we haven't closed guantanamo bay is we don't have a plan to close it. and you need a plan. you need a plan that would reassure the american public that we're not talking about dealing with people who robbed a liquor store but terrorists. and we're going to have a legal system that would allow some to be tried in military court. some to be tried in federal civilian court where appropriate. some to be released when appropriate. and yes, some to be held under the law of war because if we let them back out into the system, they will kill us. 28% recidivism rate. only makes sense if you're at war. under domestic criminal law, you cannot hold anyone indefinitely under criminal law. nor should you be allowed to. but when you're at war, and you capture a prisoner, you can hold that prisoner as long as they're a threat. the problem with this war, a war without end.

so we got to find some long-term detention review policies to deal with law of war captures so they get due process but i will not sit on the sidelines and embrace the option, you either try and let them go because that's a false choice. and a dangerous choice. about the overarching theme that you can't kill your way into safety and win the war through killing, count me in for that concept. but mr. president, what you say and what you do are totally disconnected. you talk about supporting democracies and countries in transition that are trying to reject lad cal islam. -- reject radical islam. your actions speak louder than words. iraq is a country that went through hell, was inside the 10-yard line, the surge did work and it's falling apart because the president chose not to leave any american soldiers behind when 10,000 or 12,000 would have made a difference. so mr. president, i agree with the concept that we have to stand by those in the region and give them capacity where

they have the will. because we can't kill our way to safety. but when you're given the choices, you made a poor choice in iraq and you've undercut our commanders four times in afghanistan. what i hope to find is that the president's words will match his deeds. there are parts of this speech that i could have given. you cannot kill your way to victory. you have to help those who will be willing to live in peace with you. but our track record in syria, iraq, and afghanistan is very disturbing. so i would just end with this thought. about drones. i've stood by this president because it's the technology that makes sense. there are parts of this world that are ungoverned. and we don't have any troops. and a drone is the best way to protect us and our allies against radical islamic terrorists. i would like it to be more transparent and if you want to send it over to d.o.d. i won't object funk prove to me we're still going to ution the technology to make us safe. bailiff we're in a -- i believe we're in a war that's not

winding down. we're in a war that's moving. -- that's more ofing. i have pursued the al qaeda leadership and no justification beyond politics for congress -- the justification for close gitmo is that we have destroyed the al qaeda leadership and relentless in our pursuit of terrorists. that is not a good justification because that is not true. the enemy is morphing and spreading. there are more theaters of conflict today than have been in several years. and our policy toward syria and iraq and our indecision about leaving troops in afghanistan is creating instability. our allies are more afraid than i've ever seen. our enemies more emboldened. i support the concepts that the president talks about in many ways. but if he doesn't change his policies, the middle east is going to blow up. and we're going to get hit again here at home no matter how hard we try. we could get hit anyway. but we are sending policies

that make it more likely that embassies and will be attacked and terrorism is on the rise in our back yard. and i will end with this thought. we told president bush to his face in 2006, mr. president, your policies are not working in iraq. to president obama, your foreign policy is not working and you need to adjust it. senator ayotte. >> thank you. i want to thank my colleagues. i would just add certainly my view on guantanamo. very similar to senator chambliss and been clear. i would just point out that if you look at what we did in the defense authorization in 2013, i brought in an amendment on the senate floor that passed 54-4 1 that prohibited transfer from guantanamo on a permanent basis from guantanamo to the united states. which was then changed in conference to a year. and so it's been the consistent policy of this body and i think in part certainly i share with what senator chambliss said in

terms of the use of guantanamo where we capture foreign terrorists that need to be interrogated to make sure that we get maximum intelligence. that is key and that still remains a real important -- very important key issue for us. but also there is no plan from this president on an alternative. and so that is where things stand in congress. and i think that they're likely to stand there within the essence of a cohesive plan that makes sense and protects americans. i wanted to point out with regard to yemen. the president spent in his speech a lot of time on yemen. saying that he was going to list the transfer and senator chambliss said what's changed in yemen? mere we have one of the issues we've had with return and recidivism is yemen had a prison break. if we're thinking that any of these individuals that we are going to transfer from guantanamo that still need to be detained are going to be held in safety in a prison in yemen, this incident in 2011 we

are -- where members of al qaeda basically had a prison break in yemen just demonstrates the issues we have in yemen. and to quote the president's own speech on yemen, he very clearly said al qaeda in the arabian peninsula is the most active in plotting against our homeland. that's where obviously we have already had significant activity. and you think about it. where do we get sami? he was apprehended off the coast in yemen. yemen is the -- has tenuous reach in the territory. and most telling, what do we tell americans that travel to yemen? put the slides up, brad. here is where we tell americans about yemen. so the question is this -- is nothing has changed. and the issue in terms of transferring those out of guantanamo is will -- will they reengage? will we have -- add to the 28% engagement rate to continue to commit terrorist acts against our country?

yemen frankly, what we tell our own citizens in terms of the threat to al qaeda remains very significant. and has not diminished since the administration made the decision not to transfer prisoners to yemen. so i think this issue of transferring to yemen is very troubling. given the history we have with yesmen and the terrorist activity there. and also i would add the president said in his speech that he wants congress to overturn restrictions we have on transferring people from -- detainees from guantanamo to other countries. we put together a waiver process. in the defense authorization, there's a waiver process in there. the administration can transfer people from guantanamo. but if you look in summary of what that waiver process constitutes, they have to be able to certify to congress that they can mitigate the risks that people like the terrorists -- that are being released from guantanamo are not going to reengage.

and that if they're going to be detained, that the place that they're going to be detained in is secure. where they can't escape from. and it has to be in the national security interest of the united states of america. so i would submit in response to the president's speech, we've given him a standard. and if they can't certify with respect to each individual at guantanamo, that they have mitigate the risks of reengagement so they don't attack us or our allies again. and they have made sure that it's in the national security interests of the united states of america, they can make decisions to transfer under the process we've created for them. and it seems to me those are fair considerations. so i don't think that we need to repeal the process we've given them. if they want to exercise it, justify to congress why these individuals will not present a national security risk if we transfer them. and finally, i was troubled to hear him say that he want to repeal the aumf. we remain at war with terrorists. we need only look at incidents as the president said himself

from yemen to iraq from somalia to north africa and of course what happened in benghazi to know that now is not the time where we can consider repealing the authorizations to use of military force. >> questions. >> senator who is are open minded to closing guantanamo i was wondering what your plan might be? and a senior administration ofal reporters that the difference in yemen now is we have a president who's made a difference and a stronger partner. do you want to respond that? >> your second question first and i expect they might revise their comments about the situation. and in yemen today maybe it has not filtered down to the travel advisory writers. i know they're not at the top of the food chain. but the problem in 2009 when the white house counsel came down and sat down with me and senator graham was they said we have a plan. we'll have a plan so that the american people can be assured

that these people will either be tried, stay in detention because they're too difficult to release, and sent to another country. or they will be tried and whether it be military or civilian court, they never came forward with a proposal. because they couldn't send some of these people, yemenese, back to where they wanted them to go, to their home country. and also they had no plan as to where to move the detakenees that they were going to keep. now, senator grasm in defines of all logic in my view has offered that the charleston naval shipyard be a place for a trial. senator durbin has assured us that illinois a max prison there would be a place where they could send them. so at least -- i am willing to sit down and discuss how we could do this. because i happen to believe that guantanamo bay is a terrible, terrible image of the

united states of america throughout particularly the arab world. but we can disagree on that. but all of us are in agreement until we have some kind of a plan from the administration, then the status quo has to remain. in 2009 i actually came up with a plan. and i handed it to the president. and i spent two -- on two occasions he talked with him personally about it. i spent a lot of time with rahm emanuel to find a way to move the prisoners back to illinois. as to charleston, no one suggested that they come to charleston. we'll correct that. [laughter] but i would be willing at the charleston naval brig if they want to have a court-martial or a military commission trial to look at that location as a place you can do trials. but the jail in joliet, illinois, was going to be the site. here's the problem. to move the prisoners, you have to move the concept we're at war. and i believe in due process.

and humane treatment of detainees under the law of war as well as in our civilian system. i challenged the president to embrace that law of war detention would be one of the options available to our country. there's a certain class of detainee that senator chambliss knows better than anyone else that the intelligence is strong, the evidence is -- of an intel nature that this person is intimately involved in activities against our cent and meets the definition of al qaeda affiliated person who's actively engaged in terrorist activity. but you're not going to take that evidence into a courtroom, either military or civilian. but you will have to prove to a federal judge that the person is in fact anen mi combatant. and every detainee gets their day in federal court. but under a law of war, you don't have to take them to trial. because they're enemy combatants to be held off the balingt field.

that's when it broke down. mr. president, if you want to try to find a new location to move these detainees with inside the united states, you need to have a plan that will assure the american people that there will be a system to keep these people off the battlefield. and-and-if you're going to put them in court that we have a way to distinguish between military court and civilian court. and if you're going to release them that we have a plan to make sure that they won't go back to the fight. some, no matter what, probably will. but 28% is ridiculous. the difference between a concept and a plan is as follows -- anybody who would send people back to yemen today is doing the people in yemen a disservice as well as the united states. the president of yemen has been a better partner and things are getting somewhat better in yemen. but i can't believe knowing what i know about yemen and senator mccain is going next week that the conditions on the ground in yemen and three of the people that attacked our embassy in -- consul in

benghazi came from yemen are such that it would be a good idea to release people we've held for years as terrorists back into yemen. that's the difference between a concept and an actual plan. > thank you very much. >> you talked about stability in the middle east. what specifically would you like to see them do to address that? >> arm the rebels. give them a safe zone. -- on the ad's ground, lead, go back and help the libyans do what we didn't do after gaddafi fell and that's help them with border security and build -- hopefully try to assist this huge refugee problem the lebanese have. 10% of their population is refugees. can you imagine the united states of america if 10% of our population were refugees? the strain on the government,

the outbreak of fighting that's going on in lebanon. it all comes down -- what would i have the united states of merge do? lead. lead. four-letter word. the president does not lead. and i get that from every single one of these leaders in the middle east no matter where i go. and that is a shame. and we sit by and watch these people massacred. and by the way, now we are relying on the goodwill of the russians which we have been relying on now for over two years. i don't like to predict but given the fact that the russians now have given missiles, more sophisticated weapons to bashar assad and the overflights of iraq of weapons still goes on, the fact that the russians continue to supply them in every possible way doesn't give me a great deal of confidence about a "conference" although i know geneva is a very nice place to meet, especially this time of year. >> i would like the president to announce a resedual force in afghanistan.

somewhere between 10,000 and 13,000 to avoid the consequences of what happened in iraq. people in afghanistan are trying to hedge their bets. the people with us are very uncertain about what we're going to do. if the president announced soon a residual insurance policy force, i think it could lead to a good outcome in afghanistan. we can win in afghanistan if we make the right choices. as does syria. if the president doesn't engage in -- and change the tide of battle quickly the king of jordan could be overthrown in the next six months because his economy is under siege. the weapons that are moving around today in syria are going to get in the hands of hezbollah which is israel's worst nightmare. as to iran, mr. president, we've been talking, they have -- up your game, call the chinese and russians and let them know unless the iranians change their behavior toward their nuclear ambitions there's going to be a conflict and the best way is for russia and china to get involved and helpures. reports of you disagree with the president,

what recourse and what recourse does congress have to stop -- >> well, we passed through the foreign relations committee yesterday a resolution to provide arms to the rebels. that's a signal in the right direction. i would argue six months ago you probably couldn't get that through. we had a resolution sponsored by senator graham concerning iran that was pretty tough language. congress is finally waking up and acting in absence of presidential leadership. and you will see additional resolution from senator graham probably in the next month or so concerning iran. and if -- again, if the -- if the iranians are watching, the president of the united states who said that if they use chemical weapons, it would cross a red line, do you think that the iranians think that we're serious about their red lines? i don't think so. >> let me just add, defense authorization, we have an ability which i brought in the past to bring amendments that can address the detainee and

interrogation issues. and certainly if this is the course of the administration plans to take, particularly with some of the concerns i've had, i would like to know to them why can't they justify under the waiver process we've created for them the transfer of these individuals? because that tells me they can't tell me it's in the national security interest of the united states. if we need to bring amendments on issues like guantanamo i have done in the past and i will do it again. > thank you very much. >> mexico's cartels earn an estimated $23 billion in drug trafficking revenue from the u.s. up next on c-span, a house panel investigates how the u.s., mexico, and other central american countries are working together to reduce drug trafficking. and then president obama lays

out his counterterrorism strategy. >> ourn next "washington journal" we'll talk to andrea proso about president obama's counterterrorism speech and the use of drones. this week, apple executives testifying on capitol hill after a senate panel issued a report charging the company avoided paying u.s. taxes by creating subsidiary companies in ireland. tax policy analyst curtis dubay for the heritage foundation takes your calls about corporate profits and taxes. later, a look at some of the demographic trends in rural america including farming and immigration. hn cromartie and jim webster will join us. "washington journal" is live very friday morning at 7:00 a. -- on c-span. >> the difference between left is right is those on the left look to reach down and

physically take people and move them up the economic ladder. and that is almost always driven by noble intentions. and yet it never, ever, ever works. the only way anyone has ever climbed the economic ladder is to pull himself or herself up one rung at a time. >> nearly all of you will experience failure. some of you crushing failure that you will recover from. and yes, learn from. and yes, be all the better for because once you had failure that's really the only good option. to take something from it. of course, very few of you will never recover from your failures. and statistically speaking, between two and five of you will spend some part of your life in prison. [laughter] >> every spring c-span visits college and university campuses across the country. and for the next two weekends, you'll hear stories and advice for a new graduating class.

this friday night at 8:00 eastern, with senators al franken and ted cruz, congressman james clyburn, and senator sacks by chambliss and tammy baldwin. and saturday at 8:30 congressman paul ryan, nancy pelosi, and peter king. senator elizabeth warren, congressman bill flores and senator mark warner. >> a look at a security agreement between the u.s., mexico, and central american countries to help combat drug trafficing and related crimes. this house foreign affairs subcommittee hearing is an hour nd 50 minutes. >> this committee is now called to order. good morning. and welcome to the first of two-pardon series on security cooperation with mexico and central america. the framework, as you all know, violence at the hands of drug cartels our southern border affects our own security. as well as cross-border

commerce. our communities are threatened by organized criminals who traffic drugs, money, weapons, and human beings across our border. just as they continue to threaten security and governance in mexico and the rest of the region. mexico is our third largest trading partner. and we are mexico's largest trading partner. by the way, mexico is arizona, my home state's number one trading partner. so it's very clearly in-in-both countries' national interest that we cooperate to defeat these destabilizing and ruthless drug cartels. since the 2007 signing of the initiative, mexico and the united states have been doing just that. working together to disrupt and dismantle the drug cartels working to improve mexican and regional justice systems, and to strengthen our shared border to include air and maritime control. as we approach the fifth anniversary of the signing of the initiative, i want to take this opportunity to take an honest look at our efforts in

cooperation with mexico. evaluate the effectiveness of the full range of counternarcotics efforts and to determine how we move forward to improve and make better use of this of our taxpayer money. with the p.r.a. back in power in mexico, under recently elected president enrique pena, there will be some changes to our cooperation with mexico. so i asked our distinguished panel of government witnesses to provide us with details about what these changes are likely to be and how they will affect our efforts. whether our law enforcement and intelligence agencies can combat drug trafficking organizations. under what i understand to be a move more toward centralized control under the mexican interior ministry. and to what extent will this centralization, the possibility it may derail the productive working relationships formed over the last five years between our men and women in the field and their mexican counterparts. the second panel of private sector experts will give this subcommittee their unvarnished

view of the merida initiative over the last five years. and we hope to learn their views on the effect, the changes under the new mexican administration will have in achieving its original goals of the merida initiative. i look forward to looking closely at pilar three of the current framework, building a 21st century border and hearing the experts' views on how we can improve border security so we can protect our citizens without hampering our vibrant trade relationship with mexico. as chairman of the subcommittee on the western hemisphere i've chosen to focus on opportunities for economic growth and energy independence throughout our region. and these opportunities are -- around the united states and mexico, unfortunately, the scourge of transnational drug trafficking organizations will disrupt these opportunities if the united states and mexico don't cooperate to take down the cartels and enforce our law. so i'm committed to doing all i can to make security cooperation between the u.s. and mexico as -- on solid footing as it can possibly be.

with our shared commitment. i also want to thank secretary brownfield of the state department's bureau of international narcotics and law enforcement affairs. mr. john feeley, principal deputy assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs. and ms. beth hogan, senior deputy administrator for latin america at usaid. and i would like to thank the witnesses who will testify in our second panel, ms. clark field from the congressional research service, mr. steven dudley, the director of insight, crime and dr. frounsio gonzalez, a latin american expert from johns hopkins. thank you for a very informative and productive hearing. i want to recognize the ranking member for opening statements. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and good morning. thank you to our witnesses here today. today's discussion comes at a critical time for the u.s. and mexico. the u.s., it comes at the heels of president obama's recent visit to mexico in central

america earlier this month. a time when the threat of violence by drug trafficking organizations in mexico along our southwestern border has escalated. and at a time when the u.s. congress is reviewing its financial commitment and considering historic immigration reform. impacted -- impacting over 11 million people. for mexico, it comes nearly six months after the historic turn, on december 1, 2012, enrique pinieto was elected to a six-year term to reduce crime in mexico and combating the drug trade. in particular, president pinieto has aimed to refocus the nature of the u.s. and mexico trade relationship to set on an economic reform agenda and calling for a review of the u.s.-mexican security strategy. thus far, he has moved to

centralized security policy. and had an indication that he is far more skeptical of the nature of u.s. involvement in mexico's security than previously president calderon. yet president pinieto moved to reform the structure of mexico's security structure by placing the federal police and intelligence service under the authority of the interior secretary. it could be a significant setback in cooperation between an array of u.s. and mexican federal agencies. similarly, efforts to centralize police commands and create a militarized police force to replace current military forces engaged in public security could undermine law enforcement cooperation. nonetheless maintaining strong cooperation between the u.s. and mexico is paramount. for both our nation's economy and national security. our nation's share -- our peace, economic prosperity. as well as a common border extending nearly 2,000 miles. additionally, the u.s. is

mexico's largest trading partner. and largest foreign investor. mexico, the14th largest economy in the world, is the third largest u.s. trading partner of he -- with canada and china, trade between our nations $60 billion. and the merida initiative, both countries have accepted a shared responsibility. the u.s. congress has appropriated more than $1.9 billion of fiscal year 2012 toward the merida initiative. for its part, mexico has invested nearly $10 for every $1 committed by the u.s. as of september, 2012, mexico had invested over $10 billion toward the merida program. mexico, however, remains a major producer and supplier of illegal narcotics to the u.s. including heroin, meth, marijuana and cocaine. more than 60,000 deaths have resulted from drug-related crime and violence in mexico between 2006 and 2012.

although more than that, indications of progress at times have been mixed. for instance, we have helped to train more than 7,500 federal and 19,000 state justice sector personnel. 4,000 of which are federal investigators that did not exist before. yet those suspected of involvement in organized crime can be held by authorities for up to 80 days without access to legal counsel. many inmates await trials as opposed to serving out the sentences. normally the u.s. agency of international development has concentrated most of its work in support of judicial reform at the state level. in terms of human rights, there is concern that the mexican military has committed more human rights abuses since he has been tasked with carrying out public security. the u.s. must continue to work with mexico to improve their institutions to investigate and prosecute human rights abuses and strengthen protection for human rights defenders.

the landscape in mexico has changed. politically, economically, and in terms of security. but the need to continue combating drug trafficking organizations and stem the violence from their activities remain a mutual concern. remain a mutual concern. i look forward to hearing from our panelists. the assessment of our individual and joint effort in regard to the many initiatives thus far and how both our respective nations can improve our efforts moving forward. thank you. >> thank you. i would like to recognize the most distinguished from florida. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. ranking member, for holding this important hearing regarding one of the most critical partnerships. 1984, president ronald reagan said, closer to home, there remains a struggle to survival for free rep -- latin american states. they struggle to prevent

communist takeovers, fueled by the soviet union and cuba. our policy is simple. we will not betray our friends, reward the enemies of freedom, work amid fear and retreat to become american policies, especially in this hemisphere. so many years later, we are still looking for a coherent strategy of how to advance strategy, how to promote democracy, how to better hold accountable those regimes that oppress their own people. that is why i would like to thank my friend from new jersey for joining me and introducing a bipartisan legislation countering the act of 2000 13, which urges the president to sanction those persons who are acting on behalf of the government who are responsible the humanplicit in

rights abuses against citizens of countries. i hope we can move that ill forward. thank you, mr. chairman, for this hearing. >> thank you. i would like to recognize the gentleman from new york. >> thank you. for convening this hearing today. i look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses today, all of whom are very involved and very knowledgeable on the suspect of the initiative and all of latin america. i believe the initiative is a policy tool to facilitate cooperation between the united states and our southern neighbor, mexico. the countries to maximize their respective resources by coming together with a common goal to fight crime, organized crime and corruption. build a capacity for rule of loss. they are important aspects of the agreement.

to see it grow. the u.s. mexico relations do not exist in a vacuum. it is vital this agreement continues to, meant a broader u.s. engagement plan, addressing the security concerns of mexico does not stop at a simple i lateral relations. the united states must address the region as a whole. a caribbean-based security initiative and the colombian strategic development initiative, along with the other initiative, contribute to a comprehensive regional approach that accounts for sophisticated criminal networks and complex, broad threats throughout the hemisphere. i look forward to hearing particularly from my good friend, ambassador brownsville, who could possibly speak about the importance of regional whenerships, typically

discussing columbia. -- particularly when discussing columbia. i heard firsthand in a variety of sectors. -- cts of an agreement that populations are routinely exploited by criminal networks. they are all too often the unheard victims of a lack of rule of law and diminished civil aside -- society. by building and engagement strategy that accounts for ethnic minorities and disenfranchised persons, the united states can work to lay the foundation for a safe and secure region. i look forward to hearing again from our witnesses on how we could earn her advance -- how we could further advance the people of mexico, the people of central south america, can benefit greatly from continued ,.s. support based on broad

regional vision, with shared securities, prosperity, and between the united states and our southern neighbors. thank you. i look forward to hearing your testimony. >> thank you. >> thank you. i also want to thank you and our ranking member for convening this important hearing. i want to extend my warm welcome to our witnesses this morning. it goes without saying the u.s. has a significant interest in the security of our nature -- neighbor to the south. statistics have shown with mexico safe, our own communities in the u.s. are also safe. i applaud the efforts of the current administration supporting mexico's endeavor to reduce its elevated rate of crime, violence, and drug trafficking. theso want to note comments made earlier by my good friend and colleague from new york, and i associate myself,

the interests we have taken to find out what mexico has done in its treatment of the indigenous populations there in mexico. i say this as one of the ironies, the celebration of cinco de mayo recently, one of the things maybe my fellow americans are not aware of. a gentleman was a pure indigenous indian, often raised by monks and came through to becoming eventually the lincoln and george washington of mexico, when they tried to get rid of french colombian is a met the time, the sanctum -- cinco de mayo is in reference to the leadership. this in itchiness indian who was revered and honored throughout mexico. my question is, the indigenous people of mexico had been provided copper treatment for

all these years. i will be asking more questions concerning this matter. with that, i yield back. thank you. >> thank you. i would like to turn to our witnesses. first, i would like to welcome ambassador brownfield. it is a wonderful opportunity to have you again. i look forward to what you have to say. thank you. >> thank you. to myly, i would defer regional colleague to speak first and give a basic orientation. he looks so fears this morning, i will taken advantage of this opportunity to step out of the line of fire before he speaks. chairman, ranking members, members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss u.s.-mexico security cooperation under the initiative. i do have a written statement which i will, with your per mission, enter into the record

and provide with this grief oral summary. we do not start our discussion today at .0, since our two governments agreed in 2007 that we share responsibility for the security threats of that thing mexico and will cooperate in solving them. the united states has delivered 1.2 billion dollars in support and assistance to professionalize mexico's law- enforcement and build capacity under the rule of law. the mexican government has invested more than $10 for every dollar contributed by the united states to these shared challenges. we have had an impact. more than 8500 justice sector your officials and more than 19,000 federal, state, and local police, have received training. secured federal prisons have

increased from five to 14 and their quality has increased even more. the u.s. government has provided $111 million worth of inspection equipment. that has resulted in more than $3 billion in illicit goods seized in mexico. more than 50 senior members of drug trafficking organizations have been removed from the streets of mexico. more than 700,000 mexican students have received civic education and ethics training under the initiative. this subcommittee should take great pride in its support for the initiative and what it has accomplished for the american and mexican people. ladies and gentlemen, a new president of mexico was inaugurated last september, and as with all new governments, the government came in office determined to formulate its own national security strategy and placed its own stamp on the

u.s.-mexico bilateral relationship. the new government has sent clear signals on the direction it wishes to go. it wants a single point of contact in the mexican government to coordinate initiative program and operation. and greater focus on crime prevention and economic and social development. it wants greater engagement by mexican state and local government, and sharper focus on human rights. it wants to strengthen the mexican attorney general's office, professionalize the police, and build a new gendarmerie to lift some of the burden from the federal police and armed forces. mr. chairman, i have no problem with these signals. they are logical. they are coherent. they are good ideas. there are a number of details yet to be defined, but what we have now is fully consistent with our strategic approach to

the initiative. we support the four pillars, shift focus from equipment to training, and transition from federal to state and local institutions. as the president said in mexico city two weeks ago, it is the people of mexico who decide how we will cooperate in mexico. we have made an unprecedented and historic start for cooperation under the initiative during two different administrations. in both mexico and the united states. i expect to report even more progress to this subcommittee in the months ahead. thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. members of the committee, i hope i do not look to for osha's this morning. i also thank you for the

opportunity to testify, along with my colleagues, on the u.s.- mexico security relationship. it has been my privilege to search at -- to serve at our embassy. first, in the days and months after 9/11, when we were forced to examine how neighbors must confront the harbors of terrorism in democratic societies. and most recently as i welcome some of you for mexico from 2009 2 2012, when our mexican partners and we truly transformed our security and commercial relationships in service of the american people. i must thank as well the u.s. support ofr strong the relationship in general and the initiative in particular. it is a success story. this committees commitment -- this committee's commitment to the cooperation has been a cornerstone to that success. i would note between 2007 and

-- when we began this, there have been 25 congressional delegations to mexico. i look behind you and see some of our staff or colleagues. i also recall john mackey in another era, with whom we work closely. the cornerstone of our success has been our, -- cooperation. strengthened in the obama administration, the united states and mexico cooperate in ways that were not imaginable when i reported for duty in mexico. this commitment transcends .olitical parties on may 2, president obama traveled to mexico. presidents reform -- reaffirmed

their commitment to improving the lives of all citizens and working with mutual respect across a broad range of issues. president obama emphasized the opposition of violence. the initiative is based on the recognition that our countries protecting our citizens from the crime, production. the four pillars the united states agreed to in 2010. they have reaffirmed and remain our flexible organizing construct. under these pillars, we are accelerating our efforts to support more capable institutions to expand our border focus beyond security to facilitating legitimate trade and travel, to cooperate in building strong communities, resistant to the influence of crime in mexico.

to thecess is due courageous this of the mexican people who confront this. as the assistant secretary mentioned, the president and his team have consistently made clear to us their interests in continuing our close collaboration on security issues, most recently on their visit. it stated it tends to give particular emphasis to crime prevention and the rule of law. the united states fully supports this requirement of our strategic partnership and we continue our ongoing transition toward training and capacity building together. , working together,

we have transformed the bilateral agenda. securityts to enhance will continue to evolve. mexican authorities agree our cooperation must continue. mr. chairman, thank you and members of this committee again for your support of the initiative. your support made this a catalyst for a genetically improved relationship. i look forward to continuing to working with this congress and i will be happy to answer your questions. >> thank you. we have a couple of votes we need to take their it i would have -- i would like to have you make your statements first. we will reassess and come back after the two loads. -- votes. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

i am grateful for the subcommittee interest in the usa contributions to the merit a merida initiative. analysis in latin american countries indicates high levels of crime and violence are a leading constraint to economic growth because it discourages international investment and drains domestic resources. since the inclusion of hiller in in 2010, -- pillar four 2010, we have had a particular focus on at risk youth. we do so by helping to create safe urban spaces for youth, provide them life and job skills, increase their access to educational opportunities, improve the ability of government to keep the citizens and address the

root causes of crime and violence. communities along the u.s. and mexico border are especially vulnerable to drug trafficking. we are developing models to reduce crime and violence in cities. as we identify successful approaches, the government of mexico is poised to bring it to scale in other parts of the country. we are tapping into the expertise of countries and cities that have successfully addressed gangs and violence and reduced crime. in an agreement signed last year in los angeles thomas usa is sharing that cities successful gang reduction with our partners in mexico. we have also shared other experiences in crime invention, such as cease-fire models. we are also partnering with private sector to make our efforts more sustainable. for instance, we are working with intel and credential and the cities of tijuana to train

at risk youth for production -- productive employment. our effort to reach at risk youth is bearing fruit. approximately 88% of the youth who took advantage of our program reenrolled in middle school. in tijuana, 70% are either back -- the nine focus communities have developed community master plans which will help them make the best use of local resources to reduce crime and violence. inecurity thrives environments where corruption is rampant and community emboldens criminals. we are continuing our long- standing efforts to strengthen the institutions charged with ensuring the rule of law and protection of human rights. we work closely with mexican institutions as they transition from a criminal justice system to a more open and transparent

one. a 2012 impact study conducted in five states implementing justice reforms indicated they were already having the desired effect. states reported a market the crease in pre-trial detentions and back laws, in -- in large part due to dispute mechanisms. serious crimes are receiving longer sentences, compared to states that have not yet implemented justice reforms. mexico is scheduled to enact reforms nationwide by 2016 and we are poised to help them in that effort. 2012, we trained more than 150 journalist on practices and technologies that can help protect them and their work. we are also supporting human rights training for police officers. this includes supporting master's degrees for 300 police in human rights and developing

training to incorporate internationally recognized standards. we are partnering with local organizations on campaigns to prevent torture and support the moment nation of human rights reform. the government of mexico has been a full partner in our shared endeavor to reduce try them -- reduce crime and advance human rights. they have all expressed their inference -- interest in expanding our relationships. we look forward to continuing to partnering them -- with them as they present had with their agenda. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. this committee will recess. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> this subcommittee reconvenes. i would like to thank the distinguished panel for their testimonies and the time you have allocated to be with us today. secretary brownfield, as of march 13, roughly 1.1 billion of the 9.9 billion in the funding appropriated between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2012 have been delivered. i understand at least $95 million in 2012 remains on hold your there appears to be between 600 and 700 million yet to be delivered. what is the current status of the pipeline and should we be

concerned the delivery remains largely unchanged since fall 2012? are the funds being reprogrammed to align with shifting priorities expressed by the government? if so, what should we expect this read programming to look like gecko finally, how will centralization of security cooperation affect the efforts and relationships formed, and the information that is necessary to get ahead of the cartels? >> thank you. excellent questions. let me try to knock off all of them in some sort of order. is that weculation have delivered on $1.2 billion of assistance funding and appropriations since fiscal

year 2008 area since congress has appropriated $1.9 billion in money, simple math tells you how much therefore remains undelivered. that would include of course about $200 million of fiscal year two thousand 13, which has not come to us at all due to the process. my own figure is i am looking at about $500 million in play right now. you correctly point to an issue, not the only issue, and that is that we are still working through the directions of the priorities of the vision of the new government of mexico. i signaled for you, as did john, some of the areas they have identified as priorities. we are comfortable with those areas. a definedyet have

strategy we can say we can program and implement against. we are continuing to work programs we have had in place for the past several years. you correctly note a chunk of this money, 95 million, is currently on hold due to the other house here in the united states congress. we are working to resolve those issues together with the government of mexico. finally, you mentioned one specific issue we are also working through. that is the desire of the government of mexico to have what they call the single window or single point of contact for coordination of initiative material through the government ministry, the government secretary. we are working through those issues. i have no objection to the concept, in principle, nor does anyone. it is very logical to have a single point of contact, a go

to person or decision. but how to implement that on a multi-hundred million dollar row graham that involves -- program that involves thousands of people is what we are working through. we owe you greater clarity on that and we are working on it with the government of mexico. i would hope by the time you call was here for another hearing, we would have a definitive answer. >> wonderful. thank you. i would like to point out for every dollar we spend, mexico spends 10. it is a good bang for the buck. i know how important the funding is. i would like to ask this question. all of you can address this. given the current u.s. budget constraints, the status of the initiative and the fact mexico if you had country,

to pare down, what areas would you argue for maintaining and y echo i apologize. my time has run out. if there is anything you want to supplement in writing afterwards, that is rate. a short response on that. >> i will go ahead and start. the funding for the initiative has indeed been on a downward slope. the reason is when we began this, we began with big ticket items mexico desperately needed to get not as intrusive inspection equipment to get i.t. platforms, etc.. as we have provided that assistance, mexico has spent its own money. that is the way it should be. where we have a gun to involve, even for -- even before the team came in is a greater focus on

the value we have by providing fbi agents, our justice sector people. i will let my colleagues speak more specifically. i would say, in general, absolutely, it is still necessary. this hasership engendered has also had a very positive effect across the wretch -- the rest of the bilateral relationship. you will note merida initiative is very much a government effort. it has engendered, on the mexican side, a genuine increase -- intrigue in process. something that a decade ago did not exist. from theould offer perspective, a set of numbers to indicate that not only i agree with you, but we are moving in that direction. as we learned in colombia, when your program is successful,

part of the price of success is the numbers, the funding made available to you to address it goes down. may i offer you three sets of numbers. just mine. the funding in fiscal year 2012, we received from congress $248 million or merida. continuing resolution, we received $199 million. $148014, we requested to million. the number is going down, precisely as you suggested it should. it is going down in a predictable and systematic way that i can then plan against, as opposed to having a surprise waiting for me at the end of each fiscal year. >> from usa's standpoint, we are transitioning out of several sectors in mexico in order to be able to focus and concentrate on

global climate change. we have already gotten out of the health sector in mexico. we are transitioning out of higher education and private sector competitiveness. thefunding requests on development assistance account have gone down sadly -- steadily from 34 million to 3 million and we see ourselves going down to 12 million. we are in sync with your observation about the mexican government being able to fill in that space and bleed their own development path in those sectors. >> it is nice to see programs in government that go down over time. that is a good thing. i would like to recognize the gentleman from new york. >> thank you. let me follow that for a second. i am a strong supporter of the merida initiative.

i think it is good. let me ask this question. sometimes, you try to convince your colleagues it is the right thing to do. what metric does the state department utilized to show the program is successful, to tell our colleagues this is a successful program and this is how it is being evaluated? many say you spend money and what good is it to throw money at it? can you tell us what the metrics are? [indiscernible] that is such a very important question to be able to track progress as it takes place. very focused on monitoring and evaluation of our programs in mexico as we are globally. just to give you a couple of the apples from the jester set her, the study i referenced in my opening condé -- comments looks at the time it takes a prosecutor -- prosecutor to

solve a case. we have been able to see it is taking them less than half the for to prosecute a case states that have not yet had the reform go forth. we are tracking the amount of retrial tension. we see a very spare use of pretrial detention, that mexico has had a history of having too many people in pretrial detention. now we only focus on those who are at the greatest risk of fleeing. those are the indicators we are looking at. there are many more and i am happy to give examples after my testimony. side, when we are talking about, how do we know about our programs with at risk youth. we see the numbers in school, the numbers that are going on to get employment, but we also, at the end of the day, want to

show that in the communities we are working, we will see a reduced level of crime and violence. that is the ultimate goal. we have done a baseline study in the nine communities where we are working. we have that. by february 2014, we will be able to say definitively whether or not those programs have indeed been -- achieve the goal of reducing crime violence. theeal quick, because concerns always are, as we drive crime down, especially in big cities, in the moral areas and other areas where there is not a lot of success, that is where the cartels are emanating and those are the places where the indigenous, etc.. i was wondering, could you tell us, as i mentioned in my opening statement, the effect the initiative has in regard to helping the plight of minorities in that region or mexico? how is that working echo >> i

would be happy to take that. thank you very much for your companion meant in advising how we deal with indigenous population. first, with regard to one comment, about monitoring. the president laid out what was the just -- strategic for what we hope will be an emerging security strategy. was monitoring and evaluation. we take that as a very positive sign and will continue to encourage it. with regard to mexico and the protection of indigenous populations, it is important to note, early in february this year, the new government created a commission and they hope, and it is our encouragement, the

indigenous communities will have their human rights protected through government attention to their needs, preservation of their right to autonomy. this form will be very important for continuing that. additionally, since 2003, long before this started, the mexican governor has had the development of indigenous communities, an autonomous commission created in social development. we support, very strongly, and you should he aware that the dollar people put in support the public affairs section, working to empower indigenous communities in mexico. it is called, the study of u.s. institute scholars. andave brought up exterior we continue to sponsor the program. we also have something, and my colleagues can speak in greater detail, which provides scholarships to young people and educators.

when i was in mexico, i had the privilege of provide -- presiding over several ceremonies of these people. probably be most effective thing i have ever seen is to send and educate the communities to the united states for a community college degree for training in english and see the person return. we have seen a cut -- an alumni network with a special focus on indigenous communities in mexico. it remains a high priority. .> let me correct myself i said ambassador but i had forgotten and insisted secretary. mr. secretary. let me ask you real quick. could you speak about the importance of regional partnerships, particularly when discussing work with others in the area, working together. you talk about the effect so that we are not pushing drugs one way. can you tell us that very quickly echo -- quickly?

>> you may call me ambassador whenever you wish. i promise not to be offended. you know where i am on this. we have had this conversation before. we must address the drug issue. in a regional and hemispheric way. otherwise, as we have been saying, we squeeze the balloon in one place and it will just expand in some other place. how are we doing it? we have a four-part strategy that involves colombia in the south, heavily focused on. mexico at the northern end, central america in the middle, and, eventually, ladies and gentlemen, we will have to pay greater attention to the caribbean. as we begin to fight and take hold in central america, caribbean will become an issue. we have good news here.

columbia clearly is, by everybody's account, a success story. mexico, bill would argue we have reached the turning point and we are in fact seeing now, on the ground, a real-life results of joint effort under the merida initiative. central america, we are ramping up a logic i saw in columbia for three years, and for a number of years before, is that that will begin to bite. we have a partner we have to make greater use of, although i acknowledge they have been enormously helpful so far. that is the government of colombia, which has risk -- have received 8 billion of dollars provided by this congress and are now in a position to export much of that capability. they are doing more police training in central america than we are they are doing as much monitoring and surveillance of drug trafficking, aircraft

and boats in the caribbean, as we are. , aare getting, if you will return on our investment of the last 10 years. >> thank you. >> thank you -- thank you so much. this excellent hearing. thank you to our panelists as well. although other regions often dominate the headlines, latin america remains central to our country. mexico is a vital ally in our region and is instrumental to the economic security outlook of our country. given the strong tide and interest that combine our two nations together, it is important to re-examine the merida initiative to ensure it is living up to its promise to ensure a greater measure of human rights and the rule of law in mets go as mexico struggles to address these challenges.

they have called to an end to direct access by enforcement officials on security matters. i am concerned this would impact our national security. it could hinder mutual security operations regarding trafficking, terrorism, and i am concerned mexico is not doing enough to protect its southern border, just like the colombians are training law enforcement and military personnel in the region. mexico -- mexican authorities should be doing the same thing. we have got to re-examine our own approach to the crisis in central america. they were crucial in distracting the network. eliminating cells.

am concerned about the destabilizing threat of violence in central america. these programs had been frozen for more than one year due to a hold in the senate side. this undermines the national security and lets our friends hanging out there to dry. can you give us a status update on the hold? what is the strategy of the administration regarding this money, given the fact the reprogramming deadline for honduras funds is in the beginning of june, in just a few days? ambassador brownfield, you said it was ok to call you that, i would like to turn our attention to bolivia for the moment. in 2008, the u.s. investor expelled the dea. in 2011, i urged echo terry clinton to oppose the framework agreement between the u.s. and bolivia, citing he does not want to be a partner of the

u.s. and undermines our interest in the region. just this month, he violated the constitution again by seeking a third term, expelling officials from bolivia. despite all of these expulsions, the state department continues to fund counter narcotics operations in bolivia. was a 15st for bolivia million dollars in fiscal year 11. fiscal year 12, 7 .5 million. and the administration's request for fiscal year 14 was 5 million. when will the administration realize our tax dollars can be better spent elsewhere? is there a plan to change our current foot rent? we will begin with you, mr. brownfield. i will address the bolivia question and then turn all of the others over to john.

i will not talk to the larger issue, i will talk to the specific issue you have asked. that is, what is our plans in terms of the future. of ino operations and programs in bolivia. . i have reached the same conclusion you have. i will tell you i am proud of what the i and l section called the 30s dan there over the last years. i think they have delivered great value for the american people. and, for the bolivian people. that said, the time has come for us to go. my intention to close down our section in a reasonable and orderly fashion, i would be stunned were you to see a request for fiscal year 15 for additional funding to support

activities. >> thank you so much. we will have you end right there. hallelujah. we just have a few seconds. strategy about honduras and the hold in the senate side for all the regions. >> thank you. you are right. we have looked to honduras as one as -- one of the places of most concern. institutions are weak and we have very willing partners. quite frankly, capacity that needs to be bolstered. you are correct there is a hold in the u.s. chamber of congress. we have worked with staff members to explain what we have done in terms of improving the human rights performance of honduran military and police. what we have done with our own dea and our own trainers in terms of developing standard

operating procedures, to be able to provide support to the honduran police. a have also walked through significant amount of internal review based on what happened during operation annville earlier. a lot ofot not just lessons observed, but a lot of lessons learned. we have taken the process very seriously and have remained engaged. it is a high priority to be able to continue to support the government of honduras. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. a report was released on drug policy in the americas. ofproposed the notion legalizing production sale and using marijuana and urge flexibility to deal with the drug problem. counter to me it is

what we are trying to do. i am not shocked they would come up with something like this. can you talk a little bit about this? >> certainly. i will turn over the specific he tells of the report to bill. let me just say, the united states government advocates a holistic approach to drug policy. the report that came out last week was commissioned by the aaders last year in discussion president obama had participated in. they put it in and what they -- we believe we need a baseline. thatcognize our policy looks at the drug problem as a health problem and not just a criminal justice problem, one that may have, we have

dedicated tremendous amounts of money here, almost $10.7 ,illion, for greater prevention greater education, alternate routes to be able to deal with drug albums in the united states, and the request for this report, we welcome, frankly. we are looking at the report. i would note, the report does not make a recommendation but simply lays out several scenarios that could occur if countries were to follow certain routes. with that, i will let ill go a little bit ieper. not go into detail on the drug study. it is a very long document. it is over 200 pages. my simple summary would be, the first part of it was not that. freshly done. the second part, the scenarios, what might happen if the following things happen, i found

less satisfactory. at the end of the day, the report was not actually the call for legalization the media has suggested. i went online. i entered in the drug study and the first 15 screens of what i oasall have the title, calls for legalization of marijuana. that is not what it said but you would have to get to the 16th screen before you realize that. i have saved you a vast amount of searching. we have made three or four basic fundamental points, one, all countries of this hemisphere have signed on to the international drug conventions, and we all must abide by those because we have ratified them. issue, legalization, the

is a matter of national policy. notinternational body will dictate legalization, certainly not to the united states of america and i doubt to any other nation in the world. third, the approach to drugs has to be comprehensive and holistic. if we have to address all the issues, you do not just get to pick one. and say if we solve that, we will solve the problem. we have tried that and it does not work. fourth and finally, the united states government through the office of national drug control policy, put out a new strategy about six weeks ago. it is a good strategy. it is different. i recommend you all take a look at it. it attempts to address many of the issues the drug study identified. public health as part of the issue. looking at alternatives to the criminal justice system, bringing down demands. these are good ideas. we do not disagree with them.

these are the things we wish we could have a discussion about, as opposed to a simplistic argument based upon a false from his. someving on, and i know people think it has not really iached the caribbean yet, would say, i would disagree with you. movementhe real drug now comes from the caribbean. i think they have moved on. i think a lot of the drugs that come to this country go through the caribbean. i was just wondering if you could talk a little bit about that. as we make this effort with max go and the rest of the country, i think the balloon has popped already in the caribbean. so, can you? >> i would never disagree with you.

of course, i knowledge and agree the caribbean is a current problem. and, more to the point, a growing problem. in terms of drug movement through the region. that is my operating assumption. we might differ as to precisely how much is moving through it right now, but we do not differ on the fact that it is growing. more is moving today than a year ago and many of the caribbean states are vulnerable and vulnerable to penetration by large, multi-billion-dollar enterprises, and third, we, the united states of america, do not have the resources and assets we had in the 1980's in 1990's, the last time the caribbean was overwhelmingly the .referred point of entry my argument is we had that are think about this today, when we

have some flexibility in terms of how to prepare for this situation, than waiting for two years, where we will be confronting a crisis. i think we agree on that. eventually, we owe you a clearer vision as to what our thinking is to strengthen the ability and capability is of the caribbean states, to be able to resist, combat, and eventually defeat this effort in the years ahead. >> thank you very much. thank you for calling this important hearing. let me ask two questions. a hearing there was on jacob. on june 4, it will be one year, two years, that this man has been held against his will. 18 months in the prison. i have visited there. it is a horrific place run by the inmates.

sean penn made an interesting recommendation and the backlash in bolivia and by the leadership there was very telling. that is, to pull support for the rally and to ask the sponsors to reroute the rally so it does not include bolivia. it would also mean people who are a part of it run the risk of being incarcerated themselves. the businessmen and women need to be put on high alert that it is not safe to do business in bolivia. will the administration support that? secondly, in january, i and three other members of congress wrote a letter to president obama and then secretary of state clinton and the u.s. ambassador to mexico regarding the extremely troubling case.

a u.s. citizen from puerto rico has been imprisoned in mexico for nearly one year. it is our understanding upon arriving at the airport in mexico city, the doctor was arrested and imprisoned by mexican authorities and charged under mexican law with theft, a crime he alleged to commit in a prior visit to mexico in january 2011. this is nothing more than a commercial dispute, yet he is being treated like a criminal. we understand the judge declined to admit documentation that he was not in mexico at the time of the alleged client -- crime. we understand the federal judge asked to review the case and found significant problems in the manner the judge handle the matter, then, remarkably, sent the case right back to the same judge. my colleagues and i strongly urge the u.s. government to be duective in ensuring

process and human rights are protected consistent with the civil and political rights and all other relevant international and domestic delegations. we received a state in march. theso note in february, congressman and i met with eduardo, the mexican ambassador to the u.s., to express our concerns. the ambassador did not know the case, but he pledged to look into it. months later, nothing has changed. my questions to you, are you aware of the case, what is the u.s. government to address -- doing to address the concerns we have raised, so clearly more has to be done. we have a u.s. citizen languishing in a mexican prison on charges that are commercial in nature and he has been denied the right to present evidence

that shows him to be innocent. he was not there. i met at length with his attorney and -- his at -- his attorney and he was not there. the evidence seems overwhelming. can you pledge to me as my colleagues you will look into the matter and brief us and hopefully take some action? finally, in your testimony, you talked about treating 150 journalist human rights defenders. my question to you is, does that also include -- your definition, does it include abortion-rights advocates? will go ahead and begin. thank you very much. in general, let for your very strong advocacy for american citizens detained overseas. you know better than anybody the case of jacob. you also know we face the situations all over the world. has, asrtment of state his absolute highest priority, the protection of american citizens while overseas. we have in the case, as you

know, he was released on bail, partial house arrest last year. he is still there. they continue to meet with him. we will remain in steady contact. the assistant secretary is in regular contact. with great interest to the hearing you held the other day and saw what sean penn had to say. we are looking at that and it is under study. we do not have an answer for you but we do owe you an answer. i want to reassure you the case of jacob is one -- i have a small checklist with three or four names on it. the doctor is always on their. i have a personal connection to this. my wife is from order rico. i have been in touch with him.

you describe very accurately what i understand to be the facts of the case. keep in mind the american government and our officials are not overseas able to take a position. however, ensuring transparency and a level playing field is granted to american citizens incarcerated overseas is our highest priority. he has been visited on a number of occasions by our people. we have followed the case. i can assure you the ambassador is aware of the case. our congressman is aware of the case. we will stay in close touch with both the congressman's office and with anybody else who is advocating on his behalf. let me once again thank you. mexico is the home to more american citizen prisoners overseas than any other country. i spent a good bit of my time in mexico working these types of cases. you mentioned somebody who will be a key player.

i pledge to you i will raise this with the ambassador. i am meeting with him tomorrow. we do a regularly scheduled breakfast to stay in touch. of thelutely is aware case because you raised it to him and we will raise it with him. >> thank you. >> can you answer that question? >> absolutely. >> thank you. our human rights protection programs are aimed at those who are at most serious of harm. based on their exposure of human rights violations occurring in mexico. in that group, we count ,ournalist's, but also bloggers human rights leaders who are exposing very serious issues that could come back to haunt them, if you will. abortion advocates are not part of that group. >> i appreciate that clarification. >> thank you. before i recognized the next

distinguished congressman, i would like to recognize in our audience today, we have the police director, general hosea roberto from columbia. i want to say, job well done. [applause] i am proud to work with you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from samoa. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for this important hearing concerning our bilateral relationship with the country of mexico. i hope i won't be redundant. be hopeful into

see ifshion to members of the 10 will be helpful to me. be have a 2000 mile border -- we have a 2000 mile border relationship with mexico. in excess of $460 billion. we have taken the initiative having for basic philosophical goals of how we can interact and work closely with the government of mexico as we have done for the last five years. the initiative -- the population of mexico is now 110 million i. it seems people hardly hear the fact that mexico's founding father was an indigenous indian

from one of the tribes of the yucatán area, an orphan raised by monks. and despite the racism against indians at the time, he rose against that and eventually became the leader of mexico and it was through his leadership that caused the cinco de mayo celebrations. this is how mexico got rid of french colonialism. i say this because i am curious --out of the top listen of 110 million, how many are indigenous indians? to we have a statistical -- do we have statistical data on that? >> i will have to get back to you to be specific but the vast majority of the population of the 110 know in mexican is mestizo.

the indigenous populations are primarily concentrated in the southern states as you rightly point out. it is an enormously rich tradition, one mexicans are very proud of. i would think it is relatively small because the nature of mexico and its development in the 20th century and even higher has been one of the mixing of indigenous with the original folks who came from europe. one thing i will add is that , the former mexican ambassador here used to say if soft power mattered, mexico would be a superpower. the risks of the indigenous culture cannot be overstated. as i mentioned earlier, one of the pillars of our public diplomacy programming is to

reach out to those indigenous communities and give them a platform for not just coming the united states but also for showing and preserving the diversity of that culture. thisu mentioned commission was set up in february to address these and the issues affecting the rights of indigenous peoples. was this something that started with the president, this issue felle default of thit seems lit through the cracks. correct me if i'm wrong. >> i think what you see is a -- national been a commission for the development of indigenous communities. and there were

serious problems with the indigenous and terms of their rights not being respected, land rights not being respected. axico has worked through difficult time, much in the way that the united states worked through it civil rights issue. unfortunately -- unfortunately my time is out but i will submit a series of questions in writing. >> if you have any questions from a we are going to have a laterwo of this hearing at a different date. >> that concludes our opportunity to hear your testimony and our questions. thank you so much. we are really honored to be able to work with you and count on us as allies and it's time for us to change the guards. thank you very much.

>> we are going to proceed with the second panel. i'm really thrilled. claire.-- a specialist in latin american affairs at the congressional research service. agencyrtisan research that serves the members and committees of congress and their staff located in the library of congress. 2003 as partrs in of her fellowship she completed rotation of the state department in the dominican republic. mexico,ently focuses on bolivia and central america with a special focus on security issues.

she holds a masters of public affairs and master of arts in latin american studies from the university of texas austin. she obtained her undergraduate degree from the university of notre dame. my daughter just completed a mission for our georgchurhch in ecuador, where you once worked. that's kind of neat. steven dudley, director and head of research, mexico central america and caribbean. dudley is a senior fellow at american university's center for latino studies. in a fellow at the woodrow wilson center for international scholars. "walkinghor of ghosts." haiti,has reported from brazil, nicaragua, cuba, and miami for npr and the washington

post, among others. he is a ba in latin american history from cornell university and ma from the university of texas austin. fences go gonzalez -- francisco gonzales is associate professor of latin american studies at johns hopkins university. , professoring gonzalez taught at bologna center in italy. he was the recipient of the british academy of postdoctoral

fellowship. his researchh -- includes the political impact of financial crisis in latin america. professor gonzalez is author of two books published by johns hopkins university press. the magazine for academic libraries, in 2012 he published creative destruction in latin america. he's a bigger participant and commentary shows on cnn, voice jazeeraca and al international. he received the excellence in

teaching award in 2006 and again in 2012. he is one of the few fais faculty members who have received this honor twice. dr. gonzalez earned his masters in 1997. and degrees in politics from the university of oxford. colegio delel mexico. >> reiki members, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the congressional research service. my testimony focuses on the rationale behind the merida initiative initiative and how it has evolved. violence perpetrated by criminal organizations began to threaten citizens and security in mexico. the initiative was conceived in 2007 in response to the then president request for u.s. support and help in mexico

combat drug trafficking and organized crime. prior to that time, u.s. mexican counter drug corporation was played by ms. truss. mistrust. callista is appropriate at $1.9 billion for -- congress has appropriated $1.9 billion for merida. to couple that bilateral efforts in mexico, the u.s. also pledged and cashs drug demand smuggling. acknowledging mexico cannot effectively confront organized crime with tactical victories alone, in 2010, the initiative of all to focus on the four pillars previously discussed. disrupting organized crime groups, strengthening the rule of law and human rights protection, building a 21st-

century border with emphasis on the mexican side, fostering strong resulting communities through prevention programs and services for at risk youth. the largest amount of funds requested has fallen under pillar two for criminal justice sector reform. it has been increasing support for justice sector reform and prevention programs at the state and local level. and government institutions societal problems have allowed the drug trade to florsheim mexico. many mexican analyst welcomed the merida initiative's shift in focus. some continue to argue that programs have been underfunded. into do have reservations about the anti- organized crime efforts under pillar one because of the perception they contributed to record levels of violent crime. merida has increased bilateral security operation and efforts help the calderon government arrest or kill records of

criminal leaders. few if any have been successfully prosecuted in mexico. recordalso experience levels of organized crime related violence partially in response to government efforts as criminal organizations but against each other -- split against each other. the pri took, office to enact reforms to boost mexico's economy and blogger relations with united states beyond security issues. the aim of his security chatterjee is to reduce violent crime in mexico. a goal that president obama has pledged to support -- the aim of his security is to reduce violent crime in mexico. a goal that president obama has pledged to support. although the process may be slow and difficult, it could be necessary to ensure that u.s. and mexican priorities crop pliment one anotherom

movinvgg forward. has asked for increased u.s. support for reform and prevention efforts which the united states started in providing throgugh pillars two and four of merida. some are concerned that government has limited direct u.s. involvement in some intelligence and law enforcement operations under pillar one. what are the implications for u.s. policy? --congressional approval will be needed to the state department to reprogram some of the 5'2" million dollars in funding already in the pipeline for merida or shift new

reprogram some of million dollars in funding already in the pipeline newmerida or shift to funding. i look forward to your questions. ask mr. chairman, thank you. ranking member, members of the subcommittee, i'm grateful for the opportunity to appear before of the woodrowf wilson to discuss security issues in mexico and united states efforts to address these issues to the merida initiative. ans testimony is abbreviated version of the full testimony i submitted for the congressional record. since its beginning, the merida initiative has launched an important programs ranging from prevention strategies to technical assistance, opening the way for unprecedented

cooperation between the two nations. the cooperation helped mexican authorities capture 25 of 37 doesn't it -- 37 designated kingpinsl calderon government initiated important reforms and started to restructure the country's security forces to deal more effectively with criminal organizations. ask ago has lived to an unprecedented spike in violence -- mexico has lived through an unprecedented spike in violence. targets included military personnel and civilians. targeting of military personnel was excessive. terminal banks have fragmented --criminal gangs have fragmented. they have diversified their in increasingly

large drug market -- extortion, kidnapping and other activities. the most formidable of these organizations is known as a military mind group focused on controlling physical territory and has a wide portfolio of activities. it is also grown exponentially during the last two years. come froms revenues local terminal activities that can be practiced anywhere and by virtually anyone, they have created the ultimate democratic model of organized crime. a model that can be easily replicated across mexico and is therefore inherently vulnerable to suffering internal splits. perhaps the most an asthmatic example of the challenges -- examples of the challenges is juarez. it went from 300 homicides a

year to over 3500. the spike in violence during that time is been matched only by the surprisingly precipitous drop in homicides, back down to 1 per day. there are many ways to explain this drop in violence. the most cited explanation is that in the war between the two largest, no groups in the area, one became the winner. this criminal group is maintaining order in the under world, something that seems like an oxymoron and hardly sustainable. government and citizens also took action. the government initiated a program called we are all juarez, a violence prevention strategy. citizens with the help of the federal government have created roundtables that interact with authorities demanding

accountability and results at fostering greater trust between them and their city officials. these officials include the city's police chief who many dropcredit to for the and crime and violence. the cornerstone of his policy, however, is to arrest anyone they see as a threat. some say these mass incarcerations are systematic violence -- systematic violation of human rights. it is worth noting increased cooperation between the u.s. and mexican law enforcement that also played an important role in the battle for juarez. u.s. and mexican investigators told me they were cooperating on a more regular basis since merida began. agents said this cooperation has led to real results, including arrest on the mexican and u.s. sides of the border. the president has said he will focus his efforts

on reducing violence. since taking office in december, the president has given only a broad outline of how he will achieve his goals. andas left army troops federal police in many of the same hotspots where calderon used them. he says he will continue reforms although police reform seems to be stalling already under his administration. there are some more subtle shifts in policy. he is reduce the role of the marines by 40%. seems to beole moving to was less confrontational strategy. evidence of this shift is more anecdotal than quantitative. the attorney general's office has also reduced reduced the number of drug prosecutions to a 15 year low. in general, you might say that while calderon tried to bully

his way toward a more manageable security situation, pena nieto appears more interested in some -- in taking a selective approach. as a way to lower the temperature of this confrontation. thank you for your time. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, dr. gonzalez. >> good morning. peggy for the invitation to you fortoday -- than the invitation to testify today. on training in military police equipment to help mexico pursue the [indiscernible] emphasizedinitiative institution building, helping mexico to introduce the rule of

law in the country. and thinkymakers tanks in washington and mexico city make the mistake of saying the aim is to help mexico strengthen the rule of law. this is incorrect. of innocenthousands mexicans in jail have such a good advocate of congress this here.- of congressmen alawss, they don't. one of the reasons why the early years of the merida initiative ended up surrounded by controversy was that providing means to strengthen mexico's military and police forces and given the assets -- and complaints of serious abuses started piling up regarding the conduct of mexico's military and

police forces against innocent civilians. there has been a worsening general perception of u.s. operations in mexico. attending point for mexican public opinion about the u.s. helping the war on drugs occurred after a whistleblower uncovered the so-called fast and furious operation carried out by 2011tf between 2006 and which allowed more than 2000 ak47's to walk into mexico to arrest kingpins. the operation unraveled after the tragic death due to one of these weapons by -- of the u.s. patrol agent. some of these weapons have been recovered and crime scenes released 150 mexicans were maimed or lost their lives but even blinkls have an eye. as a separate 2012, more than 1000 of these weapons remained

walking around mexico. another incident that acted as a significant eye-opener was the ambush of a u.s. vehicle with the dramatically carrying two cia agents -- vehicle with diplomatic plates carrying two cia agents. territoryo operate in without most of his collaborators knowing about this. for many, calderon's strategy bezerk.e to züric it is my view that it is right that lowering the levels of violence and homicide has become the mexican government's top priority. my own position -- after having heard many family friends and

acquaintances scattered around is that every day living conditions during the last six years have deteriorated significantly. unheard ofalmost among the backbone of middle- class mexico, has become endemic in the last few years. a case that helps illustrate the climate of intimidation that society is under given the collusion between drug training organizations and highlighting members of local state, federal government and officers. the individual in question is a prestigious heart surgeon well known for his involvement with good causes. in military platoon was sent to take his house without a search warrant. his daughter's mother in law was a state attorney who threatened to resign and go public about

information about the drug trafficking organizations. the military ransacked the doctor's house. the doctor went to see the general in charge of the garrison stationed there. he was told the action have been just a taste of what happened to him and his family if his daughter's mother in law open house. 's decisionena nieto to centralize law enforcement is not necessarily bad. the restoration of basic oversight functions is a necessary prerequisite to rein in significant fragmentation bordering on anarchy that mexico has experienced during recent years. i am not and never been a member member of any political fory, neither have i work any government or any public project. i'm proud to be a teacher and my

weapons are my reasoning in my independent voice. i think the most important action that you was representatives of taxpaying american citizens can take it to deepen their commitment to help mexico create the rule of law. the u.s. tradition of open files from a presumption of innocence, trial by a jury of peers and the notion of equality before the law are essential is mexico is to consolidate it moccasin and prosperity. thank you. >> thank you. we have to go very soon. we have a series of three votes. i'm going to abbreviate our question/ s. thank you so much. there are so many things to talk about and more questions to ask. i'm sure we will interface more at other times. mr. dudley, i would like to address one particular issue. there's been a major decrease

in drug prosecutions by the mexican attorney general's tooke since pena nieto office. in your written testimony, you said the ministration is more interested in reducing the pressure on criminal groups as a way to lower the temperature of this confrontation. in practical terms, are you suggesting the new mexican government may be willing to for thee actual results perception of reduce drug- related crimes? think they are trying to those results look like. if they were making the priorities, their party list may not look the same as the united states priority list. if the united states has a priority list of getting the five largest drug kingpins, for

them if these are not the five largest motors of violence or people engendering the disruption and violence would be, then those their priorities. i think it is a shift. i don't know about the number prosecutions. but i can say is the number of cases opened with regards to a which areype of crime closely related to drug trafficking crimes. , purchasing, those sorts of things. those are down to a 15 year low. some military personnel sent in public already that there is a notion of pulling back a little bit, lowering the number

of roadblocks, not going out and having massive sleeps anymore. maybe it's a more effective way. it is harder to say. maybe it is more targeted but you can see those subtle shifts. >> thank you. thank you for being here today. dr. gonzalez, you don't seem to think much of this effort to .entralize the security obviously they were pretty much centralize. can you elaborate? why you think this could be effective or not effective. >> thank you. i think the jury is still out. lessapproach is

provocative. an analogy would be -- it seems like the previous administration, president calderon, kicked the hornet's nest everywhere,. . this administration seems to want to target operations. important that windows ofewer opportunity where the systematic impunity and corruption that explains in the country continues to happen. an important example is the current takeover of the state of michoacan. taken over the control of municipal, state, and federal law enforcement authorities. during held her own, -- duirinrg

these threech of levels of government were doing their own thing. 90% of municipal police forces were on the pay check of the cartels, likewise high percentages of the state forces. centralizing is not necessarily a silver bullet. it at least helps to close down some of those gates to which impunity and corruption operate on a daily basis and allow an excusable things like the one i related to happen. thank you. i apologize. we have a lot going on today. this is an area of interest. we traveled last year in august to mexico city and met with the federal police. one of the thing that concerns me is the new president seems to have pulled back some of the

resources from the border. we know that's where americans are concerned that we're seeing ands-border violence mexican citizens murdered by the drug cartel in that border region. dr. gonzalez, i would ask you to comment on their perception of the president pulling his resources back to a more central location. is that a positive thing question mark i talked with roberto jacobson recently about this from the u.s. state department perspective. haveat a strategy that may long-term positive effects or the preseason concern of pulling that resources from the border area? the mainxican side? >> aim, at least in the short term, is to be less provocative.

the current mexican government, in particular there is a sense that it's very important to restore peace along the border he verygh significant relationship the u.s. and mexico have. close to half $1 trillion annually. with some of these places like juarez being the bridges that connect this incredibly vibrant exchange, the government has decided to pull back resources and concentrate in the south -- several states. rein in in particular a lot of the gangs

that have established deep theal roots within communities. they want to be able to have permanent police and military presence on -- under central control their to root that out. that is also a route where a lot of methamphetamine comes through,. , . my sense is that the earlier tactic of pulling back from the border is to be less provocative to allow for restoration of some social sense in thee amongst society large cities of the border, given the significant role they play in economic affairs. i don't think this is a strategy that will be followed for the next six years. i think this is part of a of aered a -- part

strategy. currently the idea is to concentrate further down south. >> i think 40,000 people have been killed in the border region by the drug cartel. was that because the military or the police forces have provoked the mexican drug cartels? were there a large number of that 40,000 children involved in law enforcement or were these random cartel writing one another question mark -- random cartels fighting one another>? ? will we see fewer deaths because of the pullback? >> it varies according to cities. juarez, violence was so fragmented that was no line of command. things have become so outsourced almost on a block by

block basis that no one could control virus. thankfully that was not the case or it dit not get to that stage in places like tijuana. it was on the brink. the idea is if you want to create [indiscernible] and not kick the hornet's nest, many of the deaths around 90% are drug trafficking cartels fighting over transportation routes and some officials will fallen in the line of duty. the idea of creating the [indiscernible] is to be less provocative to ring the levels of violence down. >> are the pullback is to build loyalty with the mexican government and do away with some of the corruption. gather your forces, understand loyalty factors and then come up

with a strategy going forward. that is what i'm understanding you are saying. quick that is my sense -- sense, whichy is very different from the previous approach which is going out here there and everywhere. in the sense of a majority of mexican public opinion, that created a very negative the negative spillover. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i'm sorry we did not get to ask more questions. we are going to have to go vote now so this subcommittee is now adjourned. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] president obama again asked congress to help close the guantánamo bay prison. also spoke about the use of u.s.

-- ins and more fair --in warfare. the response to the president's call to close guantánamo bay. later, more about drug trafficking in mexico. >> ahead head of the transportation security it ministration will be at george washington university tomorrow morning. the about cargo cargo security. live coverage begins at nine: on c-span3.:30 we will hear from former state department official held captive hostagehe u.s. iran ties sinc crisis. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. we do not even consider a

budget resolution. i served in the budget committee for eight years. throughout the history since 1974, there have been years years in which a buzz at -- budget resolution has not passed. but three consecutive years, the fourth a office the past one in the senate but they have not reconciled their differences. his was about to be done by april 15. -- this was supposed to be done by april 15. .nd here we are it is no wonder everything has gotten so distorted. the automatic cuts --major debt piling up. $16.8 trillion national debt. we're in in uncharted territory. >> olympia snowe depicting the current state of congressional gridlock sunday night at 9:00 on afterwards.

as we can on c-span2's book tv. now president obama outlined his counterterrorism strategy at the national defense university. he defended u.s. drone strikes overseas as legal and necessary in the fight against al qaeda. during his remarks, the president was interrupted i protester. >> here, at fort mcnair, americans have served in uniform since 1791, standing guard in the early days of the republic, and contemplating the future of warfare here in the 21st century. for over two centuries, the united states has been bound together by founding documents that defined who we are as americans, and served as our compass through every type of change. matters of war and peace are no different. americans are deeply ambivalent about war, but having fought for our independence, we know that a

price must be paid for freedom. from the civil war, to our struggle against fascism, and through the long, twilight struggle of the cold war, battlefields have changed, and technology has evolved. but our commitment to constitutional principles has weathered every war, and every war has come to an end. with the collapse of the berlin wall, a new dawn of democracy took hold abroad, and a decade of peace and prosperity arrived at home. for a moment, it seemed the 21st century would be a tranquil time. then, on september 11, 2001, we were shaken out of complacency. thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire, metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning. this was a different kind of war.

no armies came to our shores, and our military was not the principal target. instead, a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could. and so our nation went to war. we have now been at war for well over a decade. i won't review the full history. what's clear is that we quickly drove al qaeda out of afghanistan, but then shifted our focus and began a new war in iraq. this carried grave consequences for our fight against al qaeda, our standing in the world, and to this day -- our interests in a vital region. meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses -- hardening targets, tightening transportation security, and giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. most of these changes were sound. some caused inconvenience.

but some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. and in some cases, i believe we compromised our basic values -- by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law. after i took office, we stepped up the war against al qaeda, but also sought to change its course. we relentlessly targeted al qaeda's leadership. we ended the war in iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. we pursued a new strategy in afghanistan, and increased our training of afghan forces. we unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our

consultations with congress. today, osama bin laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. there have been no large-scale attacks on the united states, and our homeland is more secure. fewer of our troops are in harm's way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. in sum, we are safer because of our efforts. now make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. from benghazi to boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. we must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. with a decade of experience to draw from, now is the time to

ask ourselves hard questions -- about the nature of today's threats, and how we should confront them. these questions matter to every american. for over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war, exploding our deficits and constraining our ability to nation build here at home. our service-members and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. nearly 7,000 americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home. from our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions we are making will define the type of nation -- and world -- that we leave to our children.

so america is at a crossroads. we must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of james madison's warning that "no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." neither i, nor any president, can promise the total defeat of terror. we will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. what we can do -- what we must do -- is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend.

to define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. and that begins with understanding the threat we face. today, the core of al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan is on a path to defeat. their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. they did not direct the attacks in benghazi or boston. they have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. instead, what we've seen is the emergence of various al qaeda affiliates. from yemen to iraq, from somalia to north africa, the threat today is more diffuse, with al qaeda's affiliate in the arabian peninsula -- aqap -the most active in plotting against our

homeland. while none of aqap's efforts approach the scale of 9/11 they have continued to plot acts of terror, like the attempt to blow up an airplane on christmas day in 2009. unrest in the arab world has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like libya and syria. here, too, there are differences from 9/11. in some cases, we confront state-sponsored networks like hezbollah that engage in acts of terror to achieve political goals. others are simply collections of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory. while we are vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat, most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based. that means we will face more localized threats like those we

saw in benghazi, or at the bp oil facility in algeria, in which local operatives -- in loose affiliation with regional networks -- launch periodic attacks against western diplomats, companies, and other soft targets, or resort to kidnapping and other criminal enterprises to fund their operations. finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the united states. whether it's a shooter at a sikh temple in wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the federal building in oklahoma city -- america has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our time. deranged or alienated individuals -- often u.s. citizens or legal residents -- can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad.

that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at fort hood, and the bombing of the boston marathon. lethal yet less capable al qaeda affiliates. threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. homegrown extremists. this is the future of terrorism. we must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. but as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. in the 1980s, we lost americans to terrorism at our embassy in beirut, at our marine barracks in lebanon, on a cruise ship at sea, at a disco in berlin, and

on pan am flight 103 over lockerbie. in the 1990s, we lost americans to terrorism at the world trade center, at our military facilities in saudi arabia, and at our embassy in kenya. these attacks were all deadly, and we learned that left unchecked, these threats can grow. but if dealt with smartly and proportionally, these threats need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11. moreover, we must recognize that these threats don't arise in a vacuum. most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology -- a belief by some extremists that islam is in conflict with the united states and the west, and that violence against western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause.

of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the united states is not at war with islam, and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts. nevertheless, this ideology persists, and in an age in which ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant, our response to terrorism cannot depend on military or law enforcement alone. we need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills and ideas. so let me discuss the components of such a comprehensive counter- terrorism strategy. first, we must finish the work of defeating al qaeda and its associated forces.

in afghanistan, we will complete our transition to afghan responsibility for security. our troops will come home. our combat mission will come to an end. and we will work with the afghan government to train security forces, and sustain a counter- terrorism force which ensures that al qaeda can never again establish a safe-haven to launch attacks against us or our allies. beyond afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless 'global war on terror' but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten america. in many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries. thousands of pakistani soldiers have lost their lives fighting

extremists. in yemen, we are supporting security forces that have reclaimed territory from aqap. in somalia, we helped a coalition of african nations push al shabaab out of its strongholds. in mali, we are providing military aid to a french-led intervention to push back al qaeda in the maghreb, and help the people of mali reclaim their future. much of our best counter- terrorism cooperation results in the gathering and sharing of intelligence, the arrest and prosecution of terrorists. that's how a somali terrorist apprehended off the coast of yemen is now in prison in new york. that's how we worked with european allies to disrupt plots from denmark to germany to the united kingdom.

that's how intelligence collected with saudi arabia helped us stop a cargo plane from being blown up over the atlantic. but despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed. al qaeda and its affiliates try to gain a foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on earth. they take refuge in remote tribal regions. they hide in caves and walled compounds. they train in empty deserts and rugged mountains. in some of these places -- such as parts of somalia and yemen -- the state has only the most tenuous reach into the

territory. in other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action. it is also not possible for america to simply deploy a team of special forces to capture every terrorist. and even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians, where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities that pose no threat to us, or when putting u.s. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis. to put it another way, our operation in pakistan against osama bin laden cannot be the norm. the risks in that case were immense, the likelihood of capture, although our preference, was remote given the certainty of resistance, the fact that we did not find

ourselves confronted with civilian casualties, or embroiled in an extended firefight, was a testament to the meticulous planning and professionalism of our special forces -- but also depended on some luck. and even then, the cost to our relationship with pakistan -- and the backlash among the pakistani public over encroachment on their territory was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership. it is in this context that the united states has taken lethal, targeted action against al qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as

drones. as was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions -- about who is targeted, and why, about civilian casualties, and the risk of creating new enemies, about the legality of such strikes under u.s. and international law, about accountability and morality. let me address these questions. to begin with, our actions are effective. don't take my word for it. in the intelligence gathered at bin laden's compound, we found that he wrote, "we could lose the reserves to the enemy's air strikes. we cannot fight air strikes with explosives." other communications from al qaeda operatives confirm this as

well. dozens of highly skilled al qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, u.s. transit systems, european cities and our troops in afghanistan. simply put, these strikes have saved lives. moreover, america's actions are legal. >> we are at war with an

organization that right now would kill as many americans as they could if we did not stop them first. this is a just war. a war waged proportionally in a last resort and in self-defense. yet as our fight enters a new phase, america's legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. say a military tactic is legal or even effective is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance for the same human progress that -- in every instance. for the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power -- or risk abusing it.

that's why, over the last four years, my administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists -- insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in presidential policy guidance that i signed yesterday. in the afghan war theater, we must support our troops until the transition is complete at the end of 2014. that means we will continue to take strikes against high value al qaeda targets, but also against forces that are massing to support attacks on coalition forces. however, by the end of 2014, we will no longer have the same need for force protection, and the progress we have made against core al qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes. beyond the afghan theater, we only target al qaeda and its associated forces. even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. america does not take strikes

when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists - our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute them. america cannot take strikes wherever we choose -- our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty. america does not take strikes to punish individuals -- we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the american people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. and before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured -- the highest standard we can set. this last point is critical, because much of the criticism

about drone strikes -- at home and abroad -- understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. there is a wide gap between u.s. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports. nevertheless, it is a hard fact that u.s. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. for the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. for me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in afghanistan and iraq. but as commander in chief, i must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the

alternatives. to do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties -- not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the very places -like sana'a and kabul and mogadishu -- where terrorists seek a foothold. let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes. where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted, lethal action is the

use of conventional military options. as i've said, even small special operations carry enormous risks. conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage. and invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies, unleash a torrent of unintended consequences, are difficult to contain, and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict. so it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths, or to create

enemies in the muslim world. the result would be more u.s. deaths, more blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars. so yes, the conflict with al qaeda, like all armed conflict, invites tragedy. but by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us, and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life. indeed, our efforts must also be measured against the history of putting american troops in distant lands among hostile populations. in vietnam, hundreds of thousands of civilians died in a war where the boundaries of

battle were blurred. in iraq and afghanistan, despite the courage and discipline of our troops, thousands of civilians have been killed. so neither conventional military action, nor waiting for attacks to occur, offers moral safe- harbor. neither does a sole reliance on law enforcement in territories that have no functioning police or security services -- and indeed, have no functioning law. this is not to say that the risks are not real. any u.s. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, and impacts public opinion overseas.

our laws constrain the power of the president, even during wartime, and i have taken an oath to defend the constitution of the united states. the very precision of drones strikes, and the necessary secrecy involved in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. it can also lead a president and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism. for this reason, i've insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action. after i took office, my administration began briefing all strikes outside of iraq and afghanistan to the appropriate committees of congress. let me repeat that -- not only did congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every

strike that america takes. that includes the one instance when we targeted an american citizen, anwar awlaki, the chief of external operations for aqap. this week, i authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims. for the record, i do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any u.s. citizen -- with a drone, or a shotgun -- without due process. nor should any president deploy armed drones over u.s. soil.

but when a u.s. citizen goes abroad to wage war against america -- and is actively plotting to kill u.s. citizens, and when neither the united states, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot -- his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team. that's who anwar awlaki was -- he was continuously trying to kill people. he helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two u.s.-bound cargo planes. he was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. when farouk abdulmutallab -- the christmas day bomber -- went to yemen in 2009, awlaki hosted him, approved his suicide operation, and helped him tape a

martyrdom video to be shown after the attack. his last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over american soil. i would have detained and prosecuted awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot. but we couldn't. and as president, i would have been derelict in my duty had i not authorized the strike that took out awlaki. of course, the targeting of any americans raises constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes -- which is why my administration submitted information about awlaki to the department of justice months before awlaki was killed, and briefed the congress before this strike as well. but the high threshold that we have set for taking lethal action applies to all potential terrorist targets, regardless of whether or not they are american

citizens. this threshold respects the inherent dignity of every human life. alongside the decision to put our men and women in uniform in harm's way, the decision to use force against individuals or groups -- even against a sworn enemy of the united states -- is the hardest thing i do as president. but these decisions must be made, given my responsibility to protect the american people. going forward, i have asked my administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to congress. each option has virtues in theory, but poses difficulties in practice. for example, the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action has

the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority. another idea that's been suggested -- the establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch -- avoids those problems, but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into national-security decision- making, without inspiring additional public confidence in the process. despite these challenges, i look forward to actively engaging congress to explore these -- and other -- options for increased oversight. i believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion about a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. because for all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe.

we cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root, and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well- spring of extremism, a perpetual war -- through drones or special forces or troop deployments -- will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways. so the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism, from north africa to south asia. as we've learned this past decade, this is a vast and complex undertaking. we must be humble in our expectation that we can quickly resolve deep rooted problems like poverty and sectarian hatred. moreover, no two countries are alike, and some will undergo

chaotic change before things get better. but our security and values demand that we make the effort. this means patiently supporting transitions to democracy in places like egypt, tunisia and libya -- because the peaceful realization of individual aspirations will serve as a rebuke to violent extremists. we must strengthen the opposition in syria, while isolating extremist elements -- because the end of a tyrant must not give way to the tyranny of terrorism. we are working to promote peace between israelis and palestinians -- because it is right, and because such a peace could help reshape attitudes in the region. and we must help countries modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship -- because american leadership has always

been elevated by our ability to connect with peoples' hopes, and not simply their fears. success on these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources. i know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures -- even though it amounts to less than one percent of the federal budget. but foreign assistance cannot be viewed as charity. it is fundamental to our national security, and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism.

moreover, foreign assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars that our assistance might ultimately prevent. for what we spent in a month in iraq at the height of the war, we could be training security forces in libya, maintaining peace agreements between israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in yemen, building schools in pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists. america cannot carry out this work if we do not have diplomats serving in dangerous places. over the past decade, we have strengthened security at our embassies, and i am implementing every recommendation of the accountability review board

which found unacceptable failures in benghazi. i have called on congress to fully fund these efforts to bolster security, harden facilities, improve intelligence, and facilitate a quicker response time from our military if a crisis emerges. but even after we take these steps, some irreducible risks to our diplomats will remain. this is the price of being the world's most powerful nation, particularly as a wave of change washes over the arab world. and in balancing the trade-offs between security and active diplomacy, i firmly believe that any retreat from challenging regions will only increase the dangers we face in the long run. targeted action against terrorists.

effective partnerships. diplomatic engagement and assistance. through such a comprehensive strategy we can significantly reduce the chances of large scale attacks on the homeland and mitigate threats to americans overseas. as we guard against dangers from abroad, however, we cannot neglect the daunting challenge of terrorism from within our borders. as i said earlier, this threat is not new. but technology and the internet is increase its frequency and lethality. today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda, and learn how to kill without

leaving their home. to address this threat, two years ago my administration did a comprehensive review, and engaged with law enforcement. the best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the muslim american community -- which has consistently rejected terrorism -- to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence. and these partnerships can only work when we recognize that muslims are a fundamental part of the american family. indeed, the success of american muslims, and our determination to guard against any encroachments on their civil liberties, is the ultimate rebuke to those who say we are at war with islam. indeed, thwarting homegrown plots presents particular

challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call america home. that's why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. that means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, and build in privacy protections to prevent abuse. that means that -- even after boston -- we do not deport someone or throw someone in prison in the absence of evidence. that means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the state secrets doctrine. and that means finally having a strong privacy and civil

liberties board to review those issues where our counter- terrorism efforts and our values may come into tension. the justice department's investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. as commander-in chief, i believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. to do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. but a free press is also essential for our democracy. i am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable. journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. our focus must be on those who break the law.

that is why i have called on congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. i have raised these issues with the attorney general, who shares my concern. so he has agreed to review existing department of justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. and i have directed the attorney general to report back to me by july 12th. all these issues remind us that the choices we make about war can impact -- in sometimes unintended ways -- the openness and freedom on which our way of life depends. and that is why i intend to engage congress about the existing authorization to use military force, or aumf, to determine how we can continue to

fight terrorists without keeping america on a perpetual war-time footing. the aumf is now nearly twelve years old. the afghan war is coming to an end. core al qaeda is a shell of its former self. groups like aqap must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al qaeda will pose a credible threat to the united states. unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states. so i look forward to engaging congress and the american people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the aumf's mandate. and i will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate

further. our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. but this war, like all wars, must end. that's what history advises. that's what our democracy demands. and that brings me to my final topic, the detention of terrorist suspects. to repeat, as a matter of policy, the preference of the united states is to capture terrorist suspects. when we do detain a suspect, we interrogate them. and if the suspect can be prosecuted, we decide whether to try him in a civilian court or a military commission. during the past decade, the vast majority of those detained by our military were captured on the battlefield.

in iraq, we turned over thousands of prisoners as we ended the war. in afghanistan, we have transitioned detention facilities to the afghans, as part of the process of restoring afghan sovereignty. so we bring law of war detention to an end, and we are committed to prosecuting terrorists whenever we can. the glaring exception to this time-tested approach is the detention center at guantanamo bay. the original premise for opening gtmo -- that detainees would not be able to challenge their detention -- was found unconstitutional five years ago. in the meantime, gtmo has become a symbol around the world for an america that flouts the rule of law. our allies won't cooperate with us if they think a terrorist

will end up at gtmo. during a time of budget cuts, we spend $150 million each year to imprison 166 people -- almost $1 million per prisoner. and the department of defense estimates that we must spend another $200 million to keep gtmo open at a time when we are cutting investments in education and research here at home. as president, i have tried to close gtmo. i transferred 67 detainees to other countries before congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries, or imprisoning them in the united states. these restrictions make no sense.

after all, under president bush, some 530 detainees were transferred from gtmo with congress's support. when i ran for president the first time, john mccain supported closing gtmo. this is a bipartisan issue. no person has ever escaped from one of our super-max or military prisons here in the united states. ever. our courts have convicted hundreds of people for terrorism-related offenses, including some who are more dangerous than most gtmo detainees. they're in our prisons. given my administration's relentless pursuit of al qaeda's leadership, there is no justification beyond politics for congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened. >> [indiscernible]

[applause] >> so, let me finish, ma'am. so today, once again -- i'm about to address it. let me address it. why don't you let me address it, ma'am? why don't you sit down and i'm going to tell you what i'll do. >> [indiscernible] >> thank you, ma'am. thank you. [applause] thank you. you should let me finish my sentence. today, i once again call on congress to lift the

restrictions on detainee transfers from gtmo. [applause] i have asked the department of defense to designate a site in the united states where we can hold military commissions. i am appointing a new, senior envoy at the state department and defense department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries. i am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to yemen, so we can review them on a case by case basis. to the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries. >> [indiscernible] >> where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system. and we will insist that judicial review be available for every

detainee. >> [indiscernible] >> ma'am, let me finish. let me finish, ma'am. this is part of free speech, is you being able to speak, but you listen and let me be able to speak. [applause] thank you. now, even after we take these steps, one issue will remain, how to deal with those gtmo detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted -- for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law.

but once we commit to a process of closing gtmo, i am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law. i know the politics are hard. but history will cast a harsh judgment on this aspect of our fight against terrorism, and those of us who fail to end it. imagine a future -- ten years from now, or twenty years from now -- when the united states of america is still holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not a part of our country. look at the current situation,

where we are force-feeding detainees who are being held on a hunger strike. i am willing to cut the young lady who interrupted me some slack because it is worth being passionate about. is this who we are? is that something that our founders foresaw? is that the america we want to leave to our children? our sense of justice is stronger than that. we have prosecuted scores of terrorists in our courts. that includes umar farouk abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up an airplane over detroit, and faisal shahzad, who put a car bomb in times square. it is in a court of law that we will try dzhokhar tsarnaev, who is accused of bombing the boston marathon. richard reid, the shoe bomber, is as we speak serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison here in the united states. in sentencing reid, judge william young told him, "the way we treat you is the measure of our own liberty." >> how about [indiscernible] >> we went --

>> is that the way we treat [indiscernible] >> he went -- >> [indiscernible] killing people on the basis of suspicious activities? >> we are addressing that, ma'am. >> [indiscernible] you have killed. will you compensate the innocent families' victims? [indiscernible] i love my country. i love the rule of law. [indiscernible] >> you know, i think -- i am going off script, as you might expect here. [laughter]

[applause] the voice of that woman is worth paying attention to. [applause] obviously, i do not agree with much of what she said. obviously, she was not listening to me in much of what i said. but, these are tough issues. and the suggestion that we can gloss over them is wrong. and when that judge sentenced the shoe bomber, he went on to point to the american flag that flew in the courtroom -- "that

flag," he said, "will fly there long after this is all forgotten. that flag still stands for freedom." america, we have faced down dangers far greater than al qaeda. by staying true to the values of our founding, and by using our constitutional compass, we have overcome slavery and civil war, fascism and communism. in just these last few years as president, i have watched the american people bounce back from painful recession, mass shootings, and natural disasters like the recent tornados that devastated oklahoma. these events were heartbreaking, they shook our communities to the core. but because of the resilience of

the american people, these events could not come close to breaking us. i think of lauren manning, the 9/11 survivor who had severe burns over 80 percent of her body, who said, "that's my reality. i put a band-aid on it, literally, and i move on." i think of the new yorkers who filled times square the day after an attempted car bomb as if nothing had happened. i think of the proud pakistani parents who, after their daughter was invited to the white house, wrote to us, "we have raised an american muslim daughter to dream big and never give up because it does pay i think the -- think of the

runner who said that he was planning for the boston marathon and 2014. determination is something not to be messed with. that is who the american people are. determined and not to be messed with. now we need strategy and the politics that reflects this resilient spirit. victory against terrorism will not be measured in a surrender ceremony at a battle ship or a statue being pulled to the ground. victory will be measured in parents taking their kids to school, immigrants coming to our shores, fans taking in a ballgame, a veteran starting a business, a bustling city a citizen shouting her

concerns at a president. , thatiet determination strength of character and bond of fellowship, that reputation of fear, that is both our sword -- reputation of fear -- isutation of fear, that both our short -- sword and shield. the flag of the united states will still wave from small-town cemeteries to national monuments to distant outposts abroad, and that flag will still stand for freedom. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. they got less united states of america. may god bless the united states of america.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> resident willard -- president obama will address the graduating class at the u.s. naval academy tomorrow. we will have live coverage from annapolis of the president's commencement speech at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. afterg to reporters president obama's counterterrorism speech, republican senators john mccain, nz graham, and kelly ayotte weighed the closing of guantánamo bay prison. this briefing is 30 minutes.

this is not anoon. press briefing but a slideshow. i am joined by my colleagues, senator saxby chambliss, the ranking member on the senate intelligence committee, senator lindsey graham, from armed services and defense appropriations, and senator kelly ayotte. all four of us have been deeply involved in the issues that the president of the united states articulated his ideas and proposals on. there are some areas where we are in agreement with the president, some areas we are in disagreement. first of all, i have always advocated the closure of the prison at guantanamo bay for variety of reasons which i will not go into right now.

we wanted a plan. in 2009, senator graham and i and the white house counsel tried to articulate and come up with an agreement. we never got an agreement. the administration never came up with a coherent plan to close guantanamo bay. that is why it is still open today. and light of the president's speech today, we will pledge our willingness to work with the president to see that guantanamo bay is closed. as my colleagues will also state, there are a lot of moving parts to closing guantanamo bay, not the least of which is where you put these people, it's ones have to be kept on an indefinite basis, those that are eligible for military courts, and those eligible for civilian courts. those are tied together. on the issue of guantanamo bay,

we hope there is a plan on that issue. on the issue of authorization for military force, we are in a long-drawn out conflict with al qaeda to somehow argue that al qaeda is on the run comes from a degree of unreality that to me is incredible. al qaeda is on the run is expanding all over the middle east, from mali to yemen, and all places in between. to somehow think that we can bring the authorization of the use of military force to a complete closure is contradicting reality with the facts on the ground. al qaeda will be with us for a long time.

i specifically want to point out in the president's remarks, "we must strengthen the opposition in syria while isolating extremist elements, because the end of the tyrant does in no way mean the end of terrorism. we must strengthen the opposition in syria. i agree, mr. president, and we have watched the last little over two years, 80,000, 100,000 people massacred, the presence of extremist elements on the increase, a destabilization of lebanon and jordan, all the things that the non- interventionists said would happen if we intervened have happened because we did not intervene. i am dumbfounded that the president would say we must strengthen the opposition in syria when again we are banking on the goodwill of the russians and some kind of peace conference that may or may not

take place next month. there is a number of other comments about the president's speech that i would be glad to go into, but maybe it is better addressed in the question-and- answer period. the middle east is in turmoil. the middle east crisis for american leadership. -- cries out for american leadership. american leadership is absent in the middle east, and that is the price we have paid in iraq, the price we have paid in libya, the price we are paying in syria and other countries today. i asked the president to lead, be involved, be engaged, and that does not mean troops on the ground, but it means an exercise of leadership, including providing a safe zone for the people who are struggling against bashar al-assad, and taking out assad's assets. senator chambliss?

>> thank you, senator mccain. john and i have a difference of opinion about guantanamo bay. if we were to capture some of the benghazi terrorists who we know today are running free, what are we going to do with them? we have no place to take them. are we going to bring them into an article 3 court? what is going to happen to them? that is one question. the other one is we have 166 of the nastiest killers in the world located at guantanamo. the president said we are moving toward closure and that means the release of 86 of those individuals that have been

authorized for transfer, but they were not transferred because a number of them are going to yemen. 56 of them are yemenis. following the 2009 christmas day bomber incident, all transfers to yemen were stopped. guess what -- between december 2009 and today, has yemen shown any indication that they are more capable of looking after those individuals? absolutely not. if we were to transfer them to yemen, it would be like turning them loose. i do not think that is the right thing to do. he have a state-of-the-art facility at guantanamo. we should try them in the courtrooms there, then make a decision with what to do with them after that. the other issue i want to touch briefly on that the president talked about is the transparency

that he now wants to see in the drone program. he was limited in what he said on the program, and i can only be limited in what i say about it, that suffice it to say that in the case of awlaki, we have complete transparency that was given to the public and congress. congress knew what was going on with respect to the targeting of awlaki. that is the type of transparency that is appropriate, but to open the books on the drone program does not make america a safer place in which to live. with that, i will send it to senator graham. >> on detention policy, i would argue that administration's detention policy has been a failure. how many people have we captured and interrogated under the law all war?

every time we capture a terrorist, if we do not kill them, we bring them into the civilian court system and read them their rights. that has got to stop. about guantanamo. it is not about the location of the jail. i do not mind if we try to move it into the united states. i want a legal system consistent with being at war. you need a plan. you need a plan that would reassure the public that we are not talking about dealing with people who robbed a liquor store, but terrorists, and we will have a legal system that will allow some to be tried in military court, some tried in federal civilian court where appropriate, some to be released when appropriate, and some to be held under the law of war, because if we let them back out into the system they will kill us. a 28% recidivism rate. it only makes sense if you are

at war. under criminal law, you cannot hold anyone in definitely under criminal law, nor should be allowed to, but if you are at war and you capture a prisoner, you can hold them as long as they are a threat. this would be a war without end. we have to find some long-term review policies that deal with the captures so they get more due process, but i will not sit on the sidelines and embrace the option you either try or let them go because that represents a dangerous choice. about the overarching theme that you cannot kill your way into safety and win the war through killing, count me against that concept. mr. president, what you say and do are disconnected. you talk about supporting democracies in countries in transition trying to reject radical islam. but your actions speak louder than your words. iraq was a country that went through hell, and it is falling

apart because the president decided not to leave any soldiers behind. mr. president, i agree with the concept we have to stand by those in the region and give them capacity where they have the will, because we cannot kill our way to safety, but when you're given choices, you made a poor choices in iraq and you have under with commanders in afghanistan. there are parts of his speech that i could have given. you cannot kill your way to victory. you have to help those willing to live in peace with you, but our record in syria, iraqi, afghanistan is very disturbing. i would end with this thought about drones. i have stood by this president because of the technology. there are parts of this world that are not governed and we do not have troops, and a drone is the best way to protect allies

against terrorists. i would like you to be more transparent, and if you want to send it over to dod, prove that we are going to make the technology that will make us safe. the theme of the speech was that this war is winding down. i have relentlessly pursued the al qaeda leadership. there is no justification for congress to close a facility that never should have been opened. the justification is that we destroyed the leadership and were relentless in our pursuit of terrorism -- that is not true. the enemy is morphing and spreading, there are more theaters of conflict today than in several years, and our policy toward syria and iraqi, indecision about leaving troops in afghanistan, is creating instability. our allies are more afraid than we have ever seen. i support the concepts that the

president talked about in many ways, but if he does not change his policy, the middle east is going to blow up and we are going to hit again here at home no matter how hard we try. we are sending forward policies that will make it more likely embassies will be attacked, and terrorism is on the rise in our backyard. we told resident bush to his face in 2006, mr. president, your policies are not working in iraq. to president obama, your policies are not working. you need to adjust them. i would add certainly my view on guantanamo, similar to senator chambliss'. >> it was changed in conference to a year, so it has been a consistent policy of this party, and in part i share with senator

chambliss about the use of guantanamo, that is key and that remains an important key issue for us. also there is no plan from the president on an alternative. that is where things stand in congress, and they are likely to stand there with the absence of a plan that makes sense and protects americans. i want to point out the president said in his speech, and a lot of time, on yemen, saying he was going to lift the transfer, and as the senator said, what has changed? we have had a return of

recidivism, so if we think these individuals we are going to transfer from guantanamo, will be held in safety in prison in yemen, this incident in 2011, where members of al qaeda basically had a prison break in yemen, demonstrates issues we have there, and to quote the speech, he clearly said that al qaeda in the arabian peninsula is the most active in plotting against our homeland. that is where we have already had significant activity, and you think about it, where do we get -- he was apprehended off the coast of yemen. yemen has a tenuous reach in the territory, and what do we tell americans that travel to yemen? if you could put slide two up. the question is this, nothing

has changed, and the issue in terms of transferring those out of guantanamo is will they reengage to continue attacks against our country, and yemen, what we tell our citizens in terms of the threat to al qaeda remains very significant and has not diminished since the administration made the decision not to transfer prisoners to yemen. this issue of transferring to yemen is very troubling, given the history we have with yemen, terrorist activity there, and i would add the president said in his speech that he wants congress to overturn restrictions we have on transferring people from guantanamo to other countries. we put together a waiver process in the defense authorization process. the administration can transfer people from guantanamo, but if

you look at what that process constitutes, they have to certify that they can mitigate the risk that all, like the terrorists that are being released from guantanamo, are not going to be reengaged, and if detained, the place they are going to be detained is secure, and if detained, the place they are going to be detained is secure, where they cannot escape from, and it has to be in the national security interests of the country. i would submit we have given him a standard and if they cannot certify with respect to each individual at guantanamo that they have mitigated the risk so they are not attacking us again and they had made sure it is in the national security interest of the united states, they can make decisions to transfer under the process we've created for them. it seems those are fair considerations. we do not need to repeal a process. if they want to exercise it, justify to congress why these indivi